How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[LimpyLoo]

didn't keep track of the discussion in the thread but I would be willing to wager that even most self proclaimed atheists at least have a moral compass strong enough to know that Sam Harris is a bit of a psychopath to endorse torture

Case study:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea

 

Would you torture the dude or not?

Simple question

All I want is a straight answer

 

(You seem to think moral dilemmas *don't* in fact exist

And that the answer to any possible dilemma is "no torture"

Regardless of what is on either side of the balance

And moreover

Anyone who thinks torture is sometimes the less horrible choice

You refer to them as "advocating torture" or "pro-torture"

So let's see you demonstrate the courage of your moral convictions

And tell us what you'd do in that case study

And if it seems difficult

It's because moral dilemmas are difficult...

So no worming out by saying "I'd go find the kid before they die"

Or "this doesn't sound realistic"

Or "surprise! The kid was actually a ventriloquist dummy")

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Friendly Foil]

This is painful.

[LimpyLoo]

This is painful.

I'm curious what you would do as well

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[YO303]

How can anyone not have PTSD after torturing someone, i bet you can hear the screams in your sleep.

[Hugh Mughnus]

How can anyone not have PTSD after torturing someone, i bet you can hear the screams in your sleep.

This. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I was associated with something like waterboarding etc.

[LimpyLoo]

Would you sleep better letting the kid in the car die of heat stroke?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[luke viia]

Why are you turning this into such a black and white question? You got three very reasonable responses to your question and ignored them. This is indeed painful.

[YO303]

i dont know what you are getting at with these lame ass question, do you want us all to admit we love torture wtf what a weird hobby you have.

 

If i had to torture someone to save a life maybe ill do it but it would fuck me up forever, its not a good thing to do, its not a good situation for anyone involve and it should be a last resort kind of thing i guess.

 

My biggest worry is that we want to force OTHER people to torture some random guy we dont even know if its guilty, wtf kind of a situation is this. Also you have to wonder how many sick generals have torture fetish and they do the torture themselves just cause they are psychopaths and they enjoy it, i mean i dont know about you but i dont want sick people like that having any actual power.

[luke viia]

Granted, not specifically about that case study, but wrt torture in general, which seems like a more useful discussion anyway. I've made my stance on torture clear in other threads so I'm staying out of this one (and I'm at work, no time atm)

[Hugh Mughnus]

to force OTHER people to torture some random guy we dont even know if its guilty, wtf kind of a situation is this. Also you have to wonder how many sick generals have torture fetish and they do the torture themselves just cause they are psychopaths and they enjoy it, i mean i dont know about you but i dont want sick people like that having any actual power.

Well this, exactly.

 

Condoning or enabling it isn't much better (if at all) than doing it yourself.

 

How the FUCK could torture be a fetish anyways? I'm not saying it isn't but I can't wrap my head around these people that enjoy causing pain or suffering. It's sick.

 

I know I'm not adding much here but yeah.

[LimpyLoo]

Why are you turning this into such a black and white question? You got three very reasonable responses to your question and ignored them. This is indeed painful.

Huh?

I'm not turning this into a black and white question

At all

In fact, I seem to be one of the very few here NOT treating this like a black and white question

 

I am talking about subtle moral dilemmas where torture might be the less horrible option

 

Why don't you point your comment at someone who won't address the subtleties of the issue and instead says "no torture ever, period"

and then doesn't have the courage to address a tough moral dilemma

(And when others DO they get called "pro-torture")

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goDel]

 

How can anyone not have PTSD after torturing someone, i bet you can hear the screams in your sleep.

 

This. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I was associated with something like waterboarding etc.

Well, thing is you make some assumptions about what you think would be torture. Imo, when someone is being questioned and hit in the face once with a fist, in a situation where this person is unable to defend him/herself, this already is torture, imo. Even though similar things could happen every weekend when people drank too much and got in a fight.

I'm not thinking about the Hollywood kind of torture. The Guantanamo stuff and the abu graib stuff is basically completely psychobonkers and should have been preserved for fictional action movies.

[hoggy]

Since you are debating torture - thought I should mention Zizek's way of thinking about it - yes, you have a rule of 'no torture' - but in extreme circumstances, you might break the rule, but you must assume full responsibility for what you have done, it can never be 'justified' or made legitimate

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

 

How can anyone not have PTSD after torturing someone, i bet you can hear the screams in your sleep.

This. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I was associated with something like waterboarding etc.

Well, thing is you make some assumptions about what you think would be torture. Imo, when someone is being questioned and hit in the face once with a fist, in a situation where this person is unable to defend him/herself, this already is torture, imo. Even though similar things could happen every weekend when people drank too much and got in a fight.

I'm not thinking about the Hollywood kind of torture. The Guantanamo stuff and the abu graib stuff is basically completely psychobonkers and should have been preserved for fictional action movies.

 

I tend to think of torture as something that is traumatizing and irregular in nature, rather than a discrete one time event such as a punch? Not saying that assault or battery is any better but I don't think I'd qualify a punch as torture.

 

I'm just saying I'd probably be less traumatized from being assaulted once compared to someone blasting foreign music in my ears 24/7 so that I couldn't sleep, or repeatedly dunking my whole head in ice water or whatever you know?

[LimpyLoo]

Since you are debating torture - thought I should mention Zizek's way of thinking about it - yes, you have a rule of 'no torture' - but in extreme circumstances, you might break the rule, but you must assume full responsibility for what you have done, it can never be 'justified' or made legitimate

That's exactly my position

(And, I think, the only reasonable position)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hugh Mughnus]

Isn't that kind of circular logic there?

 

If you've broken a rule (IE determined that it's the right thing to do in that situation), then it is justified. By definition justified means right or reasonable given the situation. Why would you do it if it's not justifiable (right/reasonable)?

 

Why would you ever do something you can't justify? =/

[LimpyLoo]

Isn't that kind of circular logic there?

 

If you've broken a rule (IE determined that it's the right thing to do in that situation), then it is justified. By definition justified means right or reasonable given the situation. Why would you do it if it's not justifiable (right/reasonable)?

 

Why would you ever do something you can't justify? =/

Some people take the 'no torture ever' position

Some people take the 'torture is totally fine' position

I think neither of those is reasonable

 

I don't get the confusion here

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[auxien]

 

Since you are debating torture - thought I should mention Zizek's way of thinking about it - yes, you have a rule of 'no torture' - but in extreme circumstances, you might break the rule, but you must assume full responsibility for what you have done, it can never be 'justified' or made legitimate

That's exactly my position

(And, I think, the only reasonable position)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

If I take a pistol and shoot someone in the head, I'm a murderer. If I'm a soldier and my commanding officer orders me to do the same, and I do it, am I still a murderer? If a general orders a hundred soldiers to all point their guns and shoot this person, are we all still murderers? Are we as guilty or perhaps some lesser extent of guilty, say, 1/100th as guilty? If a country of millions says we need to elect government officials who will appoint generals who will order soldiers to circle around and shoot someone in the head, are we all guilty of murder? To the same extent, or to some lesser extent? Ultimately, it's my contribution to our economy, my tax dollars, and my vote, that created this situation that forces a bullet/s into this human's skull.

 

I'm in a way agreeing, I guess, but more posing a different perspective, in part. Because I don't feel as guilty about murder as I should, nor about torture, that was perpetrated by people from my country who were (supposedly) looking after my interests. And I sure do drive to work every day unafraid of a random missile strike from wild militants at the border, so I guess I'm safe in some way.

 

I still think it's wrong. I'd love to be a part of a society that does not torture or murder or pillage or exploit. But I'm not; America does all of these things. But we don't gather around the TV and chant "Yes we are wrong for having tortured that guy even though it was the wrong guy. Our bad, if there's a god please forgive us we're sorry." We just do not distribute that guilt and responsibility out to the masses; it's simply not possible. So to extrapolate Zizek's way of thinking as it's stated here (I'm not familiar with it otherwise, sorry) in what seems to be something that would usually work for an individual into something that is equal for a society (which is generally what torturing is done 'for,' for the common safety/good of others/the whole) I don't think works.

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

Isn't that kind of circular logic there?

 

If you've broken a rule (IE determined that it's the right thing to do in that situation), then it is justified. By definition justified means right or reasonable given the situation. Why would you do it if it's not justifiable (right/reasonable)?

 

Why would you ever do something you can't justify? =/

Some people take the 'no torture ever' position

Some people take the 'torture is totally fine' position

I think neither of those is reasonable

 

I don't get the confusion here

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

What Hoggy said is that sometimes you can break the rule, but it can't be justified.

 

Justified means that it was right and reasonable given the situation.

 

If you can't justify something, then it was not right or reasonable given the situation.

 

So why would you ever do something (break a rule) that was not right or reasonable given the situation?

 

Edit: I'm not trying to nitpick on the language used. I'm just saying that logic is circular and I don't understand it.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Since you are debating torture - thought I should mention Zizek's way of thinking about it - yes, you have a rule of 'no torture' - but in extreme circumstances, you might break the rule, but you must assume full responsibility for what you have done, it can never be 'justified' or made legitimate

That's exactly my position

(And, I think, the only reasonable position)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If I take a pistol and shoot someone in the head, I'm a murderer. If I'm a soldier and my commanding officer orders me to do the same, and I do it, am I still a murderer? If a general orders a hundred soldiers to all point their guns and shoot this person, are we all still murderers? Are we as guilty or perhaps some lesser extent of guilty, say, 1/100th as guilty? If a country of millions says we need to elect government officials who will appoint generals who will order soldiers to circle around and shoot someone in the head, are we all guilty of murder? To the same extent, or to some lesser extent? Ultimately, it's my contribution to our economy, my tax dollars, and my vote, that created this situation that forces a bullet/s into this human's skull.

 

I'm in a way agreeing, I guess, but more posing a different perspective, in part. Because I don't feel as guilty about murder as I should, nor about torture, that was perpetrated by people from my country who were (supposedly) looking after my interests. And I sure do drive to work every day unafraid of a random missile strike from wild militants at the border, so I guess I'm safe in some way.

 

I still think it's wrong. I'd love to be a part of a society that does not torture or murder or pillage or exploit. But I'm not; America does all of these things. But we don't gather around the TV and chant "Yes we are wrong for having tortured that guy even though it was the wrong guy. Our bad, if there's a god please forgive us we're sorry." We just do not distribute that guilt and responsibility out to the masses; it's simply not possible. So to extrapolate Zizek's way of thinking as it's stated here (I'm not familiar with it otherwise, sorry) in what seems to be something that would usually work for an individual into something that is equal for a society (which is generally what torturing is done 'for,' for the common safety/good of others/the whole) I don't think works.

I strongly oppose many habits of the U.S. Gov't

I don't feel they are acting on behalf of the people

I think the government is a rogue body that is only partially beholden to the people

To the extent that it is acting contrary to the will of the people, I don't think we are morally responsible for its actions (in the same way we're not morally responsible for the actions of, say, the KKK)

But whoever's will it is carrying out, it is ultimately our responsibility to try and fix it

 

But I can sleep like a baby knowing that that car thief got roughed up

There were two options, and "we" chose the better one

(What else could be done?)

To the extant that the U.S. Gov't is doing anything that could be construed as 'murder', then it needs to be stopped

 

I would be morally responsible for the atrocities of the state if I had the power to snap my fingers and change it but decided not to

This ship is big and sluggish and it'll take time to turn it around

But it was already pointed this way when I got here

And I've been trying to help turn it around ever since

So no I don't feel morally responsible for its current trajectory

Although however much one does, one could always do more

 

It's like factory farming

Do I feel morally responsible for all the U.S. factory farming?

No, I've been a vegetarian (and sometimes vegan) for 15 years

I only feel responsible in the sense that there's always more one could do

But no, not in my name (as they say)

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Isn't that kind of circular logic there?

 

If you've broken a rule (IE determined that it's the right thing to do in that situation), then it is justified. By definition justified means right or reasonable given the situation. Why would you do it if it's not justifiable (right/reasonable)?

 

Why would you ever do something you can't justify? =/

Some people take the 'no torture ever' position

Some people take the 'torture is totally fine' position

I think neither of those is reasonable

 

I don't get the confusion here

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

What Hoggy said is that sometimes you can break the rule, but it can't be justified.

 

Justified means that it was right and reasonable given the situation.

 

If you can't justify something, then it was not right or reasonable given the situation.

 

So why would you ever do something (break a rule) that was not right or reasonable given the situation?

 

Edit: I'm not trying to nitpick on the language used. I'm just saying that logic is circular and I don't understand it.

Oh I missed that part in hoggy's post

 

I think torture should be a one-off emergency measure

And it should be illegal

And those who use it in emergencies need to follow the heuristic of 'we should only do it if we know that, upon review of our illegal actions, any reasonable person will conclude that they would've done the same'

 

I think there are clearly justified uses of torture

The car thief is plainly one of them

(Fishing for information isn't)

And I think situations where torture is be justified would be obvious to any reasonable person

Any variation of The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario

Where vast harm is imminent

The guilt of the person is not in dispute

And all other means have been exhausted

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alcofribas]

your sam harrisisms are so fucking pathetic. give it a rest dude. and stop posting in your goofball poems. lol man, what a snooze fest.

[auxien]

 

 

 

Since you are debating torture - thought I should mention Zizek's way of thinking about it - yes, you have a rule of 'no torture' - but in extreme circumstances, you might break the rule, but you must assume full responsibility for what you have done, it can never be 'justified' or made legitimate

That's exactly my position

(And, I think, the only reasonable position)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If I take a pistol and shoot someone in the head, I'm a murderer. If I'm a soldier and my commanding officer orders me to do the same, and I do it, am I still a murderer? If a general orders a hundred soldiers to all point their guns and shoot this person, are we all still murderers? Are we as guilty or perhaps some lesser extent of guilty, say, 1/100th as guilty? If a country of millions says we need to elect government officials who will appoint generals who will order soldiers to circle around and shoot someone in the head, are we all guilty of murder? To the same extent, or to some lesser extent? Ultimately, it's my contribution to our economy, my tax dollars, and my vote, that created this situation that forces a bullet/s into this human's skull.

 

I'm in a way agreeing, I guess, but more posing a different perspective, in part. Because I don't feel as guilty about murder as I should, nor about torture, that was perpetrated by people from my country who were (supposedly) looking after my interests. And I sure do drive to work every day unafraid of a random missile strike from wild militants at the border, so I guess I'm safe in some way.

 

I still think it's wrong. I'd love to be a part of a society that does not torture or murder or pillage or exploit. But I'm not; America does all of these things. But we don't gather around the TV and chant "Yes we are wrong for having tortured that guy even though it was the wrong guy. Our bad, if there's a god please forgive us we're sorry." We just do not distribute that guilt and responsibility out to the masses; it's simply not possible. So to extrapolate Zizek's way of thinking as it's stated here (I'm not familiar with it otherwise, sorry) in what seems to be something that would usually work for an individual into something that is equal for a society (which is generally what torturing is done 'for,' for the common safety/good of others/the whole) I don't think works.

I strongly oppose many habits of the U.S. Gov't

I don't feel they are acting on behalf of the people

I think the government is a rogue body that is only partially beholden to the people

To the extent that it is acting contrary to the will of the people, I don't think we are morally responsible for its actions (in the same way we're not morally responsible for the actions of, say, the KKK)

But whoever's will it is carrying out, it is ultimately our responsibility to try and fix it

 

But I can sleep like a baby knowing that that car thief got roughed up

There were two options, and "we" chose the better one

(What else could be done?)

To the extant that the U.S. Gov't is doing anything that could be construed as 'murder', then it needs to be stopped

 

I would be morally responsible for the atrocities of the state if I had the power to snap my fingers and change it but decided not to

This ship is big and sluggish and it'll take time to turn it around

But it was already pointed this way when I got here

And I've been trying to help turn it around ever since

So no I don't feel morally responsible for its current trajectory

Although however much one does, one could always do more

 

It's like factory farming

Do I feel morally responsible for all the U.S. factory farming?

No, I've been a vegetarian (and sometimes vegan) for 15 years

I only feel responsible in the sense that there's always more one could do

But no, not in my name (as they say)

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

If one benefits from something that is unnaturally occurring that one has the option of removing themselves from at any point, then one is responsible for it (or guilty of it). There's always the option of doing no further harm, even if it could prevent future wrongs. Every American is ultimately responsible for the acts committed in the name of America. Vague and huge, but in my mind that's the only honest way to cut that apart; ultimately it's such a weird concept though (baby born 10 minutes ago in New York is benefitting from American evils just the same as Dick Cheney is) that I think it's almost useless to really tie us all down with that weight. The fabric of modern society depends on us not being considerate of those greater issues; we can't all stop and be Zen and meditate on the suffering undergone by the dog of a textile worker who makes $0.20 a day sewing our underwear fabric in Indonesia. If we were to stop and ponder and stress over these things, we'd feel the full weight and guilt that we (I feel) truly should, but that's not the way of our world. The moral dilemmas of any society of millions is nearly impossible to sum up and comprehend or fix. It's so weighty of a concept. I may need to try approaching the problem differently.

 

Is torturing someone because they could provide information to cause an ultimately-less-harmful conclusion to the equation a wrong? Yes. Torture is wrong, even if the person undergoing the torture is morally deserving of it. But I'd say that yes it's wrong but it's justifiable. Murder is wrong, but if I was forced to, then I wouldn't feel bad (see my previous post) yet still be morally opposed to it. I think we basically agree on that. I just don't like the idea of giving an ephemeral body (re: government) the okay to commit wrongs without absolute transparency. If every single politician and FBI agent and military persons had to answer personally for every thing they were going to do on a public stage, I think we'd be quicker down the 'right' path of less war/torture/etc. But as of now they know that they are often hidden by their 'duty,' or actually hidden from connection to the wrong perpetrated, and I think that's lead us to more 'evils' than otherwise would happen. I'm speaking of America, but I'm sure this would apply to most larger groups of people, and is likely tied in to the group or mob mentality in some way (I'm not a psychologist by any stretch).

[hoggy]

I didn't quite phrase it right, will try to find the lecture where he was talking about it when I have a chance - basically it's something like that there should never be a legal sanction for it but he can well imagine a situation in which he would be forced to do it... I'm not quite explaining it properly - will have a look round for it later

[nickthefish]

I didn't quite phrase it right, will try to find the lecture where he was talking about it when I have a chance - basically it's something like that there should never be a legal sanction for it but he can well imagine a situation in which he would be forced to do it... I'm not quite explaining it properly - will have a look round for it later

 

 

56m31s

 

Also here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/agent-provocateur-slavoj-zizek-takes-on-the-ideology-machine-of-tinseltown-8842071.html

 

"I can imagine being in a totally desperate situation where, OK – I have a young son, I love him, some evil guy says, 'Ha ha! your son is being raped, tortured, I know where he is…' I can well imagine, out of pure despair, torturing this guy. But it shouldn't be rendered something normal, which you do reasonably. You should at least be aware that out of pure despair, you did something inadmissible. I'm becoming, my God, the old kind liberal at my age! I would like to live in a society where, when someone starts to reason these vulgarities, you don't even have to argue – you consider him as a jerk, an idiot, an eccentric bad-taste guy."