I hate to say that all democrats are lying, back-stabbing, cowardly, pieces of shit. I hate to say it because that gives the lying, back-stabbing, cowardly, pieces of shit a bad name. I feel like the past two years of his political advertisements were (essentially) all lies. To think that I nearly bought into his hype...yes, to those of you who are still riding that band wagon, it is JUST HYPE! I see nothing wrong with torture carried out in the last few years. Allow me this digress...
Statistically speaking, if someone has a 1% chance of knowing where a bomb is located. (and we know how to disarm it) Now imagine that that bomb's detonation will kill 1000 people. Running the numbers yields ten statistical lives. So I say break out the rack.
Speaking of the reasoning above. (Which is called Value Adjusted Possible Consequence Utilitarianism) The POINT of torture is to prevent a disaster or to "unwind" a person or organization. I believe that groups such as al Qaeda are in themselves a ticking bomb. If you ask me they chose their side, if they are big enough problems, then they should be prepared for the water board. They deserve it, even if they don't have any useful information. Now we are getting to capital punishment...for another day I guess.
Oh yeah...here is a link regarding that sniveling prick Obama that got me started on this tirade:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/obama-administration-bush_n_189521.html
July 8 2025
-
Day 2 of my working vacation, as I call it. It’s hot in that building. Too
hot. But hopefully this will be my last week for that shit. I was looking
forw...
11 months ago
It's like some people in this country think we've never tortured anyone before. Bunch of Kool-Aid drinking retards.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you've seen this, but the Onion nailed the media's love affair with this lovely mockery:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/media_having_trouble_finding_right?utm_source=c-section
I have to say, one of my favorite points of the previous 2 year's advertising lies includes Obama's promise to "cut the deficit in half" the deficit was 200 billion dollars. Tack on his 1 trillion in spending = 1.2 trillion dollars (or 6 times the previous deficit). Kinda working the wrong direction...
ReplyDeleteAnd what the fuck... torture is a fantastic way to get information. All those whiny bitch liberals are all pissed off simply because we haven't found anything... yet. If next week's torture uncovered a fucking nuclear bomb pointed straight at New York city they wouldn't be so sympathetic.
Found this as fitting with my example:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml
run those numbers through your statistical measurement.
The problem with this type of utilitarianism is it's inability to account for certain subjective elements. Like the precedent set by the torture. You have to then account for the detrimental effects of setting a precedent that torture is ok and where that reasoning might lead in the future. (Ex: they start capturing and torturing our troops because we have established that torture is ok.) Then you have compare that with the possible consequences caused by the explosion of a bomb. It's possible that the pain of the precedent might eventually outweigh the deaths of 10 people and even the damage to buildings and the consequences such as rescue efforts or blast injuries.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to analyze these things because utilitarianism offers no method of assigning value to these variables. They are all moral considerations about possible pain and pleasure. Mill would say that we have to have a source from which to analyze the quality of pain and pleasure, but that's impossible in a situation in which we try to evaluate the pain of torture with the pain of death, and then the pain inflicted by the uncertain consequences of each because we have no source. Also, to establish a true consequences-based decision, we would have to weigh the value of each of the ten people's lives against the torture of the one person, and that is an inherenly moral consideration, which is not in line with objective, numbers-based utilitarianism. (Ex: another terrorist plotting another attack is in the building at the time it explodes. Then it might actually be beneficial to let the ten people - including the terrorist - die in order to save a bigger explosion; but there's no way of knowing that fact in your initial decision.)
Fyi - I'm generally for harsh interrogation tactics. I just think we need to be more careful about HOW harsh it is and WHO we do it to.
I agree that nothing is ever this cut and dried, but saying that the U.S. doesn't torture is fundamentally wrong. I prefer to think of torture as a deterrant or prelude to gangland executions.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, torture as policy is OK in my by book. As far as our troops getting tortured in return, it already happens. Yes more troops potentially will be subject, but it is an all volunteer army.