Reclaiming America’s Soul

Yurt said:
translation:

SM corners me so i have to denounce the logic because i say so instead of actually debating his good point....
Click to expand...

He said it was good information. Anyway I could've answered that question I would've had to acknowledge a false point. It was a loaded question, a logical fallacy, and the best way to point it out is pointing out that it's a loaded question. You have to be retarded not to see this.
 
Watermarx said:
He said it was good information. Anyway I could've answered that question I would've had to acknowledge a false point. It was a loaded question, a logical fallacy, and the best way to point it out is pointing out that it's a loaded question. You have to be retarded not to see this.
Click to expand...

what is the false point?

it would have been much harder to actually counter his claim...you took the easy route and claimed it a loaded question, which, it actually might not be.... until you can show his presupposition as false, you're wussing out dude.

do read up on your logical fallicies....and genius, do you even see the irony of your last sentence....ad hominem....
 
Consequentialism. yes, a new ism to villify ladies and gentleman. We should all make decisions without considering consequences. Only elites in important schools and business should consider consequences.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Consequentialism. yes, a new ism to villify ladies and gentleman. We should all make decisions without considering consequences. Only elites in important schools and business should consider consequences.
Click to expand...

I argue that we should primarily concern ourselves with the morality of the action we are doing in and of itself, rather than the consequences, unless doing otherwise would be grossly unreasonable. This is because consequentialist logic is flawed in that you cannot KNOW the consequences.

Let me ask you something, AssHat, if there were, for instance, a fat woman stuck in a cave blocking 17 other people from getting out, would you let all of them die or kill the woman to get the people out? Well this happened in real life - and guess what, they eventually were able to get the people out without killing her. And that's pretty much how all these immoralist consequentialist lines play out in real life - there's a much easier, simpler solution.

In the case of torture, it's not useful in gaining information. In fact, it could be said to be harmful in the way that, if the info is taken seriously, it pollutes high-quality information channels with low quality information.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
I argue that we should primarily concern ourselves with the morality of the action we are doing in and of itself, rather than the consequences, unless doing otherwise would be grossly unreasonable. This is because consequentialist logic is flawed in that you cannot KNOW the consequences.

Let me ask you something, AssHat, if there were, for instance, a fat woman stuck in a cave blocking 17 other people from getting out, would you let all of them die or kill the woman to get the people out? Well this happened in real life - and guess what, they eventually were able to get the people out without killing her. And that's pretty much how all these immoralist consequentialist lines play out in real life - there's a much easier, simpler solution.

In the case of torture, it's not useful in gaining information. In fact, it could be said to be harmful in the way that, if the info is taken seriously, it pollutes high-quality information channels with low quality information.
Click to expand...

sorry i thought you would ever tell the truth....

look up US court cases where police "tortured" a suspect to save a life....though police may have lost the suspect on a technicality of the law, they saved a life.....but you are right, let's argue the law. the law is blind....

i honestly had higher regards for you....
 
Watermarx said:
I argue that we should primarily concern ourselves with the morality of the action we are doing in and of itself, rather than the consequences, unless doing otherwise would be grossly unreasonable. This is because consequentialist logic is flawed in that you cannot KNOW the consequences.

Let me ask you something, AssHat, if there were, for instance, a fat woman stuck in a cave blocking 17 other people from getting out, would you let all of them die or kill the woman to get the people out? Well this happened in real life - and guess what, they eventually were able to get the people out without killing her. And that's pretty much how all these immoralist consequentialist lines play out in real life - there's a much easier, simpler solution.

In the case of torture, it's not useful in gaining information. In fact, it could be said to be harmful in the way that, if the info is taken seriously, it pollutes high-quality information channels with low quality information.
Click to expand...


You even justify your own morality based on the consequences. they all got out ok.
 
Yurt said:
sorry i thought you would ever tell the truth....

look up US court cases where police "tortured" a suspect to save a life....though police may have lost the suspect on a technicality of the law, they saved a life.....but you are right, let's argue the law. the law is blind....

i honestly had higher regards for you....
Click to expand...

And they were rightly fired and sentenced to 20 years or so in prison, correct?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You even justify your own morality based on the consequences. they all got out ok.
Click to expand...

How could you have known that though AssHat?

You, in your evil consequentialist logic, would've said "Oh wait, this is hopeless, let's blast a cannon in her to get the rest out." Rather than going down the moral path and finding the right thing to do. That's b/c you're evil.
 
Watermarx said:
I argue that we should primarily concern ourselves with the morality of the action we are doing in and of itself, rather than the consequences, unless doing otherwise would be grossly unreasonable. This is because consequentialist logic is flawed in that you cannot KNOW the consequences.

Let me ask you something, AssHat, if there were, for instance, a fat woman stuck in a cave blocking 17 other people from getting out, would you let all of them die or kill the woman to get the people out? Well this happened in real life - and guess what, they eventually were able to get the people out without killing her. And that's pretty much how all these immoralist consequentialist lines play out in real life - there's a much easier, simpler solution.

In the case of torture, it's not useful in gaining information. In fact, it could be said to be harmful in the way that, if the info is taken seriously, it pollutes high-quality information channels with low quality information.
Click to expand...

Since the article you posted states that a rescurer was able to climb over her, why did you throw in the suggestion that strangling her was one way to get the others out>>
Obviously the entire group was not in any dangerr.

OH-WAIT, YOU NEEDED SOMTHING TO TRY AND SUPPORT YOUR AGENDA, no matter if it had nothing to do wth the subject matter.
 
Watermarx said:
How could you have known that though AssHat?

You, in your evil consequentialist logic, would've said "Oh wait, this is hopeless, let's blast a cannon in her to get the rest out." Rather than going down the moral path and finding the right thing to do. That's b/c you're evil.
Click to expand...


Your own article shows that if there had been an emergency, they could have crawled over her.
You seem to be the only one that seems to be anticipating this poor womans demise.
Why is that??
 
Socrtease said:
Do you really think that these tactics have ONLY been used on bona fide Terrorists? Do you really believe that every person the CIA and the military took into custody was guilty of something? People get taken into custody by accident all the time. If our country used any of these tactics on a SINGLE innocent, then it shames us. I'm sure it is ok with you though, ok that a few good people get used as grist to grind up the bad guys.
Click to expand...
The fact that valuable information was obtained proves that the CIA didn't aggressively interrogate the wrong men. They trusted our volunteer soldiers, and were rewarded with honesty and integrity.
 
Southern Man said:
The fact that valuable information was obtained proves that the CIA didn't aggressively interrogate the wrong men. They trusted our volunteer soldiers, and were rewarded with honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...
They waterboarded Osama bin Laden's right hand man 182 times and he didn't give up his boss. You are right, super effective. Sorry to doubt the procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top