snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human Grow up, Tony. He is right the Snowy and it happens all the time on the forum. He isn't right. His comment and your support of that are pretty insulting as it presupposes that those who have a different moral perspective to you (and Tony) are only saying so because they are 'sat at a computer'. I don't suggest that it can't and doesn't occur but your positions appear to be that it is always the case. For some people, they take the view that there is no point in having principles if they do not stand up to tests (they are really not principles if they are dropped and ignored when it might appear expedient). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 so they can agree to disagree, brush it all under the carpet and let it all just blow over? it's what they did with Mandela and Adams :-) The difference is Mandela and Adams hadnt admitted they were directly responsible for killing thousands. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Its all good and well saying they are still a human being, but im sure that if they were withholding the location of your son or daughter who was being held at gun point your view on torture would soon change! You may be 'sure' but that's an incredibly daft and arrogant position to take. p.s. My stance on the prohibition of torture is not really based on any thoughts about 'terrorists being human beings' (any more than everyone is a human being and it's not for you or me or any other human being to decide when they lose this 'status'). It's based more about the debasing and dehumanisation of the torturer and, by extension, the society that allows the torturer and even encourages him. Then one has the practicality aspect. I'm not going to get involved any further in it because I've done it on here a couple of times and all people really want to do is make comments like, "If it was your son.daughter/mother/father/wife/girlfriend and so on." We can all play the hypothetical game to try and trick people with different views but it's a rather bogus game to play and in the end it reduces the subject's importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted November 11, 2010 Its all good and well saying they are still a human being, but im sure that if they were withholding the location of your son or daughter who was being held at gun point your view on torture would soon change! You may be 'sure' but that's an incredibly daft and arrogant position to take. p.s. My stance on the prohibition of torture is not really based on any thoughts about 'terrorists being human beings' (any more than everyone is a human being and it's not for you or me or any other human being to decide when they lose this 'status'). It's based more about the debasing and dehumanisation of the torturer and, by extension, the society that allows the torturer and even encourages him. Then one has the practicality aspect. I'm not going to get involved any further in it because I've done it on here a couple of times and all people really want to do is make comments like, "If it was your son.daughter/mother/father/wife/girlfriend and so on." We can all play the hypothetical game to try and trick people with different views but it's a rather bogus game to play and in the end it reduces the subject's importance.Exactomundo. You could play the same game, and say: "If a bunch of heavily armed US/British soldiers had steamed into your village, descrated your religious icons, burned your house, killed your kids and dragged your husband/brother/father off to be tortured, wouldn't YOU be tempted to commit an 'act of terrorism'"? Just speaking hypothetically, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 Its all good and well saying they are still a human being, but im sure that if they were withholding the location of your son or daughter who was being held at gun point your view on torture would soon change! You may be 'sure' but that's an incredibly daft and arrogant position to take. How is it arrogant? Becuase i would do anything to protect my family? I just assume that any normal human being with 1oz of love and compasion would do the same. Obviously im wrong and peoples moral standings come first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 You could play the same game, and say: "If a bunch of heavily armed US/British soldiers had steamed into your village, descrated your religious icons, burned your house, killed your kids and dragged your husband/brother/father off to be tortured, wouldn't YOU be tempted to commit an "act of terrorism"? Just speaking hypothetically, of course. That wouldnt be terrorism tho Mike so all that you've just typed is a waste...twas beautiful tho mate. Twould be revenge would it not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted November 11, 2010 You could play the same game, and say: "If a bunch of heavily armed US/British soldiers had steamed into your village, descrated your religious icons, burned your house, killed your kids and dragged your husband/brother/father off to be tortured, wouldn't YOU be tempted to commit an "act of terrorism"? Just speaking hypothetically, of course. That wouldnt be terrorism tho Mike so all that you've just typed is a waste...twas beautiful tho mate. Twould be revenge would it not. Arguably, yes it would/could be terrorism. But like Snowy says, this debate is pointless. People just want to indulge a chance to play the hypothetical game (which when done properly to encourage debate can work - I did it a while back on this very subject) but here it's just using it to play a game so it's useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 You could play the same game, and say: "If a bunch of heavily armed US/British soldiers had steamed into your village, descrated your religious icons, burned your house, killed your kids and dragged your husband/brother/father off to be tortured, wouldn't YOU be tempted to commit an "act of terrorism"? Just speaking hypothetically, of course. That wouldnt be terrorism tho Mike so all that you've just typed is a waste...twas beautiful tho mate. Twould be revenge would it not. ?? What makes you think most terrorists are not acting in some sort of revenege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 From Wiki Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted November 11, 2010 There isn't a common definition of terrorism so quoting Wiki won't help you I'm afraid. As the thing you quoted even says itself. The NGO element is easily undermined and has been plugged by the West (and other states) to aid them in their cause not be considered the bad guys sometimes. The term terrorism itself is derived from state actions, it was born of the French state following revolution that went on the war path leading to the 'Great Terror'. I would (and have) argue that torture itself in the right circumstances would be considered terrorism. Mikes scenario could be considered terrorism. By the by anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted November 11, 2010 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that's not my point. I was just pointing out that the same hypothetical (and highly emotive) arguments are used by both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 How is it arrogant? It is arrogant because you are saying," I know how you would actually think in situation x regardless of what you believe or say." Your position about what you would do is not arrogant; your definite (you are sure) position about what I would do is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 How is it arrogant? It is arrogant because you are saying," I know how you would actually think in situation x regardless of what you believe or say." Your position about what you would do is not arrogant; your definite (you are sure) position about what I would do is. Fair enough mucka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 How is it arrogant? It is arrogant because you are saying," I know how you would actually think in situation x regardless of what you believe or say." So you'd consider the human rights of the person who knows the whereabouts of your possibly soon to be killed family member rather than getting them freed? I don't think anybody in their right mind would agree it not to be fair on the terrorist and to accept the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human Grow up, Tony. But , Reality is that if the situation was real , they would , and they are deluded If they think otherwise Nonsense. Your response here completely confirms the intention of you asking your hypothetical question. It wasn't to debate the issue, it wasn't a real thought experiment, it was you trying to trap someone into giving one specific answer - when you didn't receive that answer, you have dismissed the other as, effectively, a lie (in reality they are deluded if they would not answer in the way in which I want them to). In reality, you're talking cock. I see our resident know it all has taken umbridge again ... Why does it have to be a "thought experiment" .. or a trap .. it's VT Off topic not Freud I didn't call you a liar , i said a person was deluded if they kidded themselves otherwise .. nothing to do with my opinion , it's more to do with Human emotion and fact .. no doubt my vegetarian example didn't meet your experiment criteria either but it's reality , I agree it's great to have a moral compass and principals but find me a vegetarian who says they would starve to death on the island rather than eat the animal and I'll show you a deluded vegetarian who would be eating crackling faster than you can say pass the mustard Being a keyboard warrior is far far removed form the real world , I think some people often over look that fact ... Tough choices require tough decisions .. maybe Churchill shouldn't have sunk the French Fleet , maybe we'd all be typing in German now if he hadn't .. who can say for sure , but what we shouldn't be doing from the safety of our homes is passing judgement on the people that DO have to make those decisions 5 ,10, 20 or even 100 years later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 So you'd consider the human rights of the person who knows the whereabouts of your possibly soon to be killed family member rather than getting them freed? Try reading some of the other posts in the thread. To Tony: Your posts are not worth replying to as all you want to do is throw insults at people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarry Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 My problem is a little bit of torture may lead to a bit more torture and then escalate into more common usage rather than just anti-terrorism. It's opening Pandora's Box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 To Tony: Your posts are not worth replying to as all you want to do is throw insults at people. it's funny cause if you read back the thread you will see that it was you that started on the insult train , i merely happen to be better at it than you are and as I know how you like things to be correct and precise , technically in telling me you weren't replying you in fact replied :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 it's funny cause if you read back the thread you will see that it was you that started on the insult train Thing is with a hypothetical question is one can give an hypothetical answer and stand to it as if they are some form of moral super human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 If my kids were in danger it would tear me to pieces and I'd gladly give my life in exchange.... but I would NEVER condone the barbaric torturing of another human being to possibly extract information that may lead to their release. If you have principles then you stick to them no matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts