This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry for double post, but I think this goes well with discussion about fear in another thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16943268
Yeah I don't see the point of torturing prisoners for information; like they say, you never get what you want, it's just the criminals saying what they think the torturer wants to hear, whether it's true or not.
Post by
MyTie
Sorry for double post, but I think this goes well with discussion about fear in another thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16943268
Yeah I don't see the point of torturing prisoners for information; like they say, you never get what you want, it's just the criminals saying what they think the torturer wants to hear, whether it's true or not.
If someone has information that can prevent the death of my family, I would torture him for it. Perhaps immoral, but for the physical defense of my family, I'm willing to cross lines.
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry for double post, but I think this goes well with discussion about fear in another thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16943268
Yeah I don't see the point of torturing prisoners for information; like they say, you never get what you want, it's just the criminals saying what they think the torturer wants to hear, whether it's true or not.
If someone has information that can prevent the death of my family, I would torture him for it. Perhaps immoral, but for the physical defense of my family, I'm willing to cross lines.
And what is the actual chance you'll get the 'real' truth from him? He's going to tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear due to the pain. Torture does not work and your family will still probably end up gone, as this is real life not TV or the movies where the hero saves the day through needed torture.
Edit: Hell MyTie, if someone captured you and tortured you long enough, they could make you publicly renounce your own religion; you may not mean it, but you'll say anything to make the suffering stop.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
And what is the actual chance you'll get the 'real' truth from him? He's going to tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear due to the pain. Torture does not work and your family will still probably end up gone, as this is real life not TV or the movies where the hero saves the day through needed torture.
Edit: Hell MyTie, if someone captured you and tortured you long enough, they could make you publicly renounce your own religion; you may not mean it, but you'll say anything to make the suffering stop.
There are situations that exist, such as if someone put my family in a situation where they will die, and they know where they are, but wont tell me. These are far fetched situations. I'm not saying we should torture people just because we suspect they know something.
Yet, in other thread, you mentioned that Iran ignoring human rights makes them insane, and here you agree with torture (which is also
violation of human rights
) because it is for noble reason? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Right... well.. if someone is going to hurt my family I will hurt them. Don't know how this translates to governments putting women to death if they are raped. Perhaps you are mistaking me for a government entity. I don't feel that governments should EVER be able to put people to death. I disagree with the death penalty. However, kill my family and ill kill you. I am not a government entity. Can you see the difference? Can you see the difference between Iran and MyTie? Please stop comparing me to Iran. It's just silly.
Post by
Adamsm
There are situations that exist, such as if someone put my family in a situation where they will die, and they know where they are, but wont tell me. These are far fetched situations. I'm not saying we should torture people just because we suspect they know something.Except, a torture victim tells the torturer what they want to hear, and not the truth; say a group does capture your family and they are going to die, but you catch some grunt who doesn't know where your family is: If you torture him, he'll blurt out locations that more then likely won't be the truth, to make you stop.
And while you say that MyTie, a lot of governments don't think like that(GITMO does exist for a reason after all.....).
Post by
MyTie
There are situations that exist, such as if someone put my family in a situation where they will die, and they know where they are, but wont tell me. These are far fetched situations. I'm not saying we should torture people just because we suspect they know something.Except, a torture victim tells the torturer what they want to hear, and not the truth; say a group does capture your family and they are going to die, but you catch some grunt who doesn't know where your family is: If you torture him, he'll blurt out locations that more then likely won't be the truth, to make you stop.
And while you say that MyTie, a lot of governments don't think like that(GITMO does exist for a reason after all.....).
I would let keep him locked up, and check the info, and not stop until I got the right info, and then I would be gracious enough to off him.
This topic is getting a little gorey.
And, like I said, I don't approve of any government entity nor individual torturing anybody for any reason.
Post by
Adamsm
I would let keep him locked up, and check the info, and not stop until I got the right info, and then I would be gracious enough to off him.But you are never going to get the right information because the goon does not know where your family is, so you are just torturing some thug to death.
And, like I said, I don't approve of any government entity nor individual torturing anybody for any reason.Which we agree on there.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Yet, in other thread, you mentioned that Iran ignoring human rights makes them insane, and here you agree with torture (which is also
violation of human rights
) because it is for noble reason? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Right... well.. if someone is going to hurt my family I will hurt them. Don't know how this translates to governments putting women to death if they are raped. Perhaps you are mistaking me for a government entity. I don't feel that governments should EVER be able to put people to death. I disagree with the death penalty. However, kill my family and ill kill you. I am not a government entity. Can you see the difference? Can you see the difference between Iran and MyTie? Please stop comparing me to Iran. It's just silly.
I appreciate your love for your family and your resolve to keep them safe. But, before seeing difference between you and Iran, I would like to say this. Governments consist of people like you and me. If they pass a law or regulation, that means there is certain agreement on these things. Now, imagine the situation where people who share your views on the issue got elected in your government ( and you will most likely vote for them, cause the share your views) and they pass a law it is OK to torture if it is for your family. Will that be wrong?
I am not comparing you with Iran, MyTie. I compare you with people who run it. I cannot see the difference between you and Ayatollah as human beings, except ideology.
You're seeing this in too much of a black and white lens. Let me add some clairity:
I would never vote for someone that approved of torture. Didn't vote for Bush, didn't vote for Obama. If I were in a government office, I wouldn't approve of torture, nor vote for a law that did. I do not think torture is ok, or good, or useful, or should EVER be done, by any government or person. HOWEVER, I am not so naive to think that if placed in the situation that involved my family, I wouldn't do the wrong thing. I am quite certain I would do the very wrong thing there. I'm just being honest here.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Contraceptive Insurance?
What is the world coming to when women have to take out insurance policies on pregnancy prevention? Lol. What ever happened to closing your legs? If you DON'T want to get pregnant, then DON'T have sex. The sad thing is, that in today's society, expecting abstinence is not only incorrect, but it is taboo. It used to be that if a woman slept around, that was taboo. Now expecting that not to happen is taboo. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, to read that POTUS is making sure women can pay the money to keep their legs open, all couple of dollars of it. My wife and I aren't financially able to support another baby, so we forked over the... what was it... 40 bucks... or whatever, for a very long term, yet easily reversible, contraceptive. Why is this even an issue?
Post by
Squishalot
Contraceptive Insurance?
What is the world coming to when women have to take out insurance policies on pregnancy prevention? Lol. What ever happened to closing your legs? If you DON'T want to get pregnant, then DON'T have sex. The sad thing is, that in today's society, expecting abstinence is not only incorrect, but it is taboo. It used to be that if a woman slept around, that was taboo. Now expecting that not to happen is taboo. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, to read that POTUS is making sure women can pay the money to keep their legs open, all couple of dollars of it. My wife and I aren't financially able to support another baby, so we forked over the... what was it... 40 bucks... or whatever, for a very long term, yet easily reversible, contraceptive. Why is this even an issue?
If you don't want to get sick, then rug up and don't get cold. If you don't want holes in your teeth, start brushing each night. That attitude doesn't stop other curative drugs and procedures from being subsidised by health insurance, generally speaking. Why should contraceptives be any different?
(Note: to be clear, this is a Devil's Argument argument. I personally think it's absurd that contraceptives are to be subsidised, but I'm neither for nor against it.)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
I have little or no understanding of the US health care system (only enough to know that it's a contentious issue) but this makes a fair amount of sense to me. Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancy (not to mention STIs) is a national issue that isn't solved by judging those who conceive unplanned children or by telling people that want to have sex that they shouldn't. It's solved by educating people (not just women) about the risks and consequences and providing easy access to cheap, safe forms of contraception.
Essentially I'm saying that, whatever your moral issue, the state will pay more later if they don't help out at the education/contraception stage.
I also think there's a gender inequality here. MyTie's comments come across as very judgemental of women without any judgements of the men involved and it does, after all, take two to tango. the old taboo of a woman that "sleeps around" (such a silly, antiquated phrase) was a sexist taboo that we're better to be rid of -though I don't really agree we are since men are still "studs" while women are never referred to in such positive terms. If the repercussions of sex were the same for men I'm quite sure this would be a very different conversation.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here's one that could turn into a debate.
In this case, an 15 year old girl killed her 9 year old neighbor, and confessed to it, because she "wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone." She is 18 now, and was just sentenced to life + 30 in prison (there is still the possibility of parole). What do you guys think of life sentences on heinous crimes committed by juveniles?
@ My Tie-
So in one breath, you're berating people for not "closing their legs" if they don't want to get pregnant, and in the other you're telling us that you and your wife took steps to allow you to avoid pregnancy, so that you could continue to have sex. Hypocrite much? If YOU are not willing to give up sex to keep from having a baby, then how can you sneer at other people who feel the same way? I know that when they say contraception, it brings to your mind unwed mothers and sinning singles, but the truth of it is many, many people do use contraception while married. Young couples, especially, who want to leave their options open later will use temporary contraception. Clearly, you believe married couples should be able to have sex without having a child, or else you wouldn't have taken whatever measure you took. And if that "reversible measure" was some kind of operation, were the costs really only $40....or was that your out of pocket after your
insurance
covered the rest of the bill? What's the difference between them covering things like a vasectomy and covering things like birth control pills, morally?
If you're worried about increases in your insurance premiums, think about the relative costs of pre-natal care, a hospital stay, a delivery, etc. to a pack of birth control pills that, even without insurance, is pretty inexpensive. The costs to insurance companies when someone has a baby are much, much greater than the cost of subsidizing birth control pills. Literally, I think that the difference between my co-payment and the cost of my pills is like 15 bucks a month. It makes more sense financially to help people avoid future medical care that will cost the companies more money. This will actually keep premiums down.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
I don't think the parents should be jailed for what their daughter did, unless it's proven that they are part of it. Sometimes, it's not the mother, but nature that gives birth to a psycho. You can't label a parent handicapped because their son is in a wheelchair.
But obviously, check them. It needs to be done.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
I don't think the parents should be jailed for what their daughter did, unless it's proven that they are part of it. Sometimes, it's not the mother, but nature that gives birth to a psycho. You can't label a parent handicapped because their son is in a wheelchair.
But obviously, check them. It needs to be done.
Well, some checking first, then jail if they are part of it, somehow....
Which was my point :P
Post by
Adamsm
Here's one that could turn into a debate.
In this case, an 15 year old girl killed her 9 year old neighbor, and confessed to it, because she "wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone." She is 18 now, and was just sentenced to life + 30 in prison (there is still the possibility of parole). What do you guys think of life sentences on heinous crimes committed by juveniles?That it should happen; punishment should fit the crime and all that.....since that girl sounds like a budding sociopath and you can't cure those people(and I really doubt her apology was sincere).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.