Hiya Bartcop,
You asked about whether anyone agrees with you on the T word.
Well...yes & no.
Is it okay to slap someone to save a million lives?
Yes.
You are a torture lover!
How can you live with yourself?
A slap is CLEARLY the lesser of the two evils.
However the schism comes from you quoting a theoretical
position and your readers sticking to a practical one.
I agree.
We're talking about two different things but nobody sees that except you.
IF we KNEW that Orange Jumpsuit #1 was going to set off a nuke in downtown Metro,
and IF we KNEW that slapping him about would make him talk, and IF we KNEW
that what he told us were true then yes, I'll hold him, you get the sap.
Do you realize you've stepped where the others refuse to step?
You just said "there are times..."
That's all I ever asked for - a simple "there are times..."
BUT!!!
That's a lot of IFs.
Correctamondo!
When they say, "President Bart, can we torture this terrorist to find his bomb?"
I would make them jump thru a lot of IF hoops before I would sign onto that.
If I understand the doves, they say, "Let the 10M die, torture is always wrong."
To me, "Let the 10M die" is extremism.
I coulda sworn I said this before...
Subject: tort
wow. well if you ever get to this message, good for you.
people sure are foaming at the mouth over this one aren't they?
i don't think it's quite up to the israel level yet (oh, the arguments i've had about that one...)
here's my take...
i see your logic about the relative worth of one person (the hypothetical torture victim) against 10 million.
where that logic breaks down, i think, is in the unintended consequences of that action.
let's say your scenario plays out. we torture the one guy and the ten million are saved.
is that the end of it and then torture gets put away until the next nuclear threat?
or does the ruthless efficiency of that method work it's way into the day-to-day prosecution of warfare and law enforcement?
a lot of people think that once a line gets crossed it's hard to go back.
so in your scenario i think it's likely that torture becomes a more familiar component of society,
if not common-practice. not just in the states, but world-wide.
so. 100 million torture victims later are you still happy you saved the 10 million?
you know, as long as we're still visiting hypothetical-land?
i, for one, don't know... i don't think any easy answers exist with regards to this subject, but i think you're being
just as stubborn as the holier-than-thous that have been writing in. but i do appreciate your willingness to debate
the issue for this long. (long enough for a dimwit like me to come up with a half-decent point anyway. ha!)
cheers and keep hammering,
dave m.
los angeles
Dave, I asked for intelligent debate, I think you've answered the call.
Those are great questions, but we can't get to them until after the 10M people are saved.
At least your way, we're two intelligent adults discussing a life-and-death problem.
The choices in this scenario (Make your own up if you disagree) are slap = life
or
failure-to-slap = 10M dead, and I'm sorry, but I fall on the side of 10M alive.
Bottom Line:
Politics is about deciding where to draw the line.
The "no line" people scare me.
Subject: torture again
I haven't seen where you've said torture doesn't work, is morally wrong, etc. etc.
If I am not misunderstanding your position on this, you're wrong.
I still love you and won't cancel my sub...
CFlock
C, torture works.
I'm not saying that's a good thing - it's just a fact.
I believe people who say torture does not work are not being honest with themselves
because they lose touch with reality when they see t, o, r, t,, etc coming at them in a sentence.
You can't show me a study that says "Torture doesn't work" because it does.
Of course, if "Bob" doesn't know where the bomb is hidden, no amount of torture can make him omniscient,
but if he knows about the bomb, he's going to tell. Of course, a small percentage of people could probably resist
ongoing physical pain, but the vast majority will cave in and talk and nothing can change that.
Subject: torture
I agree that torture is never ok.
Fay
Fay, I understand, but if your family was going to die in a bomb blast without the information
that torture might provide, you'd choose to let them die instead of pressuring or torturing the bomber?
One must be careful when using the term "never."
Subject: Wal down under
Bart mate
Congrats on publishing the letters that disagree with you.
Of course they are, as I said, uniformly against your position.
You don’t need to hold a survey – you know your position is untenable
Wal
ha ha
I'm the crazy man with 10,000,000 survivors
but we envy the 10,000,000 who sacrificed themselves to prevent a girly slap?
Aren't most doves Darwinists?
Didn't Darwin teach us surviving is evolving?
What part of "surviving" do you disagree with?
Subject: tort
Hi Bart,
I think your question may presume too much
("Would you allow a guilty man to be slapped to save ten million lives?").
Let me address my two main issues with your argument.
First: "...a guilty man...", based on what? His tortured confession (not reliable), eye witnesses
(again, generally not reliable), Bush's say so? Absolute certainty of someone's guilt is a rarity, if it exists at all.
Second: "...to save ten million lives" There's no way to guarantee that carrying out your act of aggression will
have that desired outcome. Who's to say that the innocent torture survivors (it does happen), their families and
their descendants, don't attempt to exact revenge potentially costing us more lives than we were trying to save?
It's just too short sighted as a matter of policy.
The whole debate reminds me of a joke: A guy walks up to this gorgeous woman and asks her if she would
sleep with him for $1 million dollars. A big smile spreads across her face as she blurts out: "Sure!".
Then he asks her: "How about for $10 bucks?". Her face turns angry and she snaps back:
"What kind of girl do you think I am!?".
He responds: "I think we've already established that, now we're just haggling over price".
It's a slippery slope...
Keep swinging,
-Cid
Cid, in reverse order, that "slippery slope" is horse hockey.
Any argument can deteriorate into "slippery slope" so it's a useless and pointless argument.
(Can we arm the police? Won't they murder jaywalkers? It's a slippery slope.)
Your million dollar question is right on point.
If the doves would take a breath and admit some logic into their minds, they'd agree that one slap
saving 10M lives is acceptable - but they can't allow those thoughts because logic is a stranger to them.
But if you allow logic to "butt in," at least you have a debate, which is what I was after.
"...to save ten million lives?" you asked with incredulity, and then you asked for a guarantee.
When the bell rings at the fire station, they have no guarantee they'll save lives.
So, by your logic, there's no reason to answer the call right?
If I'm wrong about that, feel free to straighten me out.
But if you believe 10M lives are at risk (Don't say it can't happen) you should do anything you can
to save those lives, right? And if that involved a slap, why would doves allow the 10M to die?
And finally, "...a guilty man...", based on what? and then you listed a bunch of reasons that are
outside my peramaters so it makes we wonder why you would do that. Each time someone
changes my question in order to answer it, it reinforces the idea that my position is correct because,
it seems, the only way to argue against my idea is to change the question and then argue against that.
Funny how a man can't get a simple answer to a simple question.
Hey Bart,
You wrote:
> "When asked, "Would you allow a guilty man to be slapped to save ten million lives?" they say no!!!
> "Slapping is wrong!" they say, but watching 10,000,000 innocent people die for no reason makes sense? "
The problem isn't with torturing the guilty guy. I say put the thumbscrews on him. If torturing what's-his-name
(the "20th Hijacker", who was caught in Minnesota in August '01 but no one bothered to find out why he was
trying to learn to fly planes but not land them) would have smoked out Atta and the gang, I say we should have
gone to the iron maiden, the rack, whatever it took.
But I ask you if is it OK to allow an innocent man to be slapped just because you think he's guilty?
That is what the heart of the anti-torture argument is.
It the same thing with the anti-death penalty argument.
Is it OK to put an innocent man to death even if you are right 99.9% of the time?
The problem isn't torturing guilty people, it's torturing innocent people wrongly accused.
And the Bush Clan is all about torturing anyone and everyone who is kinda dark, guilty or not.
Daniel in H-Town
Daniel, I've said this again and again and again but it doesn't "take" with the unrealists.
1. The fella would have to be 100 percent guilty, caught red-handed right in the act and
2. Time would have to be a very big factor as is, the bomb is going to explode in hours, not days.
It seems to a small-brained person like myself that the simple answer is, "Sure, if the man is
certainly guilty and time is crucial, torture should and must be used to save 10M lives,"
but some people can't say that.
No doubt, dove thinking threw a few percentage points to Bush in the last election.
Subject: torture
Bart,
If there's a religio-nut in custody who has a nuke that's going to blow up Manhattan in X minutes, or
wherever this ridiculous fantasy argument has spiraled to, then sure, by all means torture him to find out
how to disarm the bomb. (And keep hoping that he's in the .01% percent of religio-nuts who gives a damn
whether he lives or dies or suffers.)
The problem is that's not what the BFEE torture discussion is about. That's what "24" is about.
That's what Bruce Willis movies are about. That's not what Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo is about.
We've had CIA raping little boys in front of their mothers (attribution: Seymour Hersh).
That isn't in the same UNIVERSE as this "ticking time bomb" daydream that keeps coming up.
Fine - I never said it was.
I never said, "Take my scenario, then change it and add 100 facts that weren't in my scenario
and then turn around put my name on your scenario, then ask how Bart could support such a thing."
My scenario is my scenario and it can't be changed without my permission.
It's also nowhere near what you're calling a "slap." Neither is beating a guy to death with a flashlight
Neither is beating, kicking, and poking a guy's eyes until he dies (attribution: ).
Neither is making randomly rounded-up guys (journalists, in this case) do bad stuff. (attribution ).
None of the elements of the we-gotta-torture-'em-to-save-the-world straw man are real.
I didn't say my examples were real. - we were having (or attempting to have) a debate.
Did I say "Gouge a suspect's eyes out?"
No, so why would we be arguing that point?
Why is it so difficult to stick with my question?
No ticking time bombs. Bush's war cops were looking for hidden WMDs. (Remember Saddam's magical 45-minute
WMD program? That's why most of these guys were tortured, before we officially concluded that Scott Ritter was right after all.
And the Afghan flashlight victim won't be ratting out Osama any time soon.)
No terrorist masterminds in custody. We have indiscriminate roundups that catch journos, farmers, and little kids.
No "slaps." Christ. Rape. Murder.
I have not suggested we rape or murder anybody.
Funny, those non-Bart tangents keep creeping into this conversation.
Real-deal torture with dogs and electricity and broken bones and thumbs-up while you smile for the cameras.
If you're going to stand up for something, stand up for reality, not fantasy.
My idea is an example of reality because it exists.
Your idea of torture with dogs and broken bones shouldn't be in this conversation.
I think you're great. I'll always read you. But I wouldn't be a friendly mini-pillar if I let you get away with
minimizing big deals or maximizing little crap. On the torture issue, you're doing both, so I had to say something.
Keep swinging the hammer (come to think of it, I know some GOPers who could use some hammer torture),
-Dave in Oregon
Dave, how can asking a question be "minimizing big deals or maximizing little crap?"
We still have not begun my debate, because we're too busy swatting away dozens of
wild-ass scenarios that have not been supported or introduced by my original question.
Drastic stab at making my point:
It's like I said,
"Going to Ft Lauderdale for Spring Break is safe," and people write back,
"How can you suggest it's safe to go to Baghdad for Spring Break?"
You see how easy it is to change a word and then attack the questioner for being unreasonable?
If you disagree with Ft. Lauderdale, why is it fair to substitute Baghdad and then scream at me?
I assume we'll never get to MY debate, because too many people want to change my words
into something they saw on TV and that's proving nearly impossible to overcome.
Subject: torture
<much snippage>
To allow torture of a terrorist believed to have information needed to prevent an attack is to allow torture
of anyone who is /accused /of being a terrorist believed to have information needed to prevent an attack,
and that, in the end, is to allow torture of anyone.
I respectfully request that you reconsider your position on this issue.
Best regards,
Kit Winter
Kit, who said we should allow torture of a terrorist believed to have information?
Certainly not me.
I need a smoke and a drink...
Back to bartcop.com