just me wrote:Yes. It's good that he came up with these techniques because we all know that people always tell the truth when they are tortured.
While I don't generally condone torture, there are ways of telling if a person is telling the truth under intense interrogation. by the way I don't really consider sleep deprivation or water boarding as real torture.
I regretted writing this as soon as I pushed the send button. First it really had nothing to do with the OP and I have different perspective on this than most people. On one hand I can say that I don’t approve of torture but on the other hand I have directly benefited from information gained by its use. I had a different frame of mind at the time and I am sorry to admit that I did not look at the Taliban members (and others) as my fellow human beings just LFS’s that needed to be dealt with. (To be clear I have never tortured anybody)
Anyway I apologize for having made the comments. I enjoy this board and don’t want the people here to think I am some right wing nut job. We have bcspace and Droopy for that
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
son of Ishmael wrote:I regretted writing this as soon as I pushed the send button. First it really had nothing to do with the OP and I have different perspective on this than most people. On one hand I can say that I don’t approve of torture but on the other hand I have directly benefited from information gained by its use. I had a different frame of mind at the time and I am sorry to admit that I did not look at the Taliban members (and others) as my fellow human beings just LFS’s that needed to be dealt with. (To be clear I have never tortured anybody)
Anyway I apologize for having made the comments. I enjoy this board and don’t want the people here to think I am some right wing nut job. We have bcspace and Droopy for that
We don't have to agree with each other on everything to get along and be cool.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I think an argument can be made for the use of torture. It's a discussion we ought to have as a nation. Reasonable people can differ on the question, and all can acknowledge there are no easy answers. Whether water boarding should or should not be used in a given situation is a debate worth having. I just don't think we should try to get around the thorniness of the issue by simply declaring that it is not real torture. I don't think someone has to be a right-winger to condone the use of torture in some circumstances (I believe Alan Dershowitz did at one point and I don't know anyone who would call him a right-winger). Anyhow, whether it is ultimately justifiable or not on moral or legal grounds, it strikes me as exceedingly odd to call a CIA guy who invented the technique as a Bishop. And to have no objections from the congregation (yes, I have never seen an objection--the vote always appears "unanimous in the affirmative" Nobody ever objects by making it "manifest by same sign"). And Mormons wonder why people think they are a cult.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:I Anyhow, whether it is ultimately justifiable or not on moral or legal grounds, it strikes me as exceedingly odd to call a CIA guy who invented the technique as a Bishop.
Equality wrote:I Anyhow, whether it is ultimately justifiable or not on moral or legal grounds, it strikes me as exceedingly odd to call a CIA guy who invented the technique as a Bishop.
Why?
Clarification: odd for a church that claims to be following the teachings of Jesus and claims to be receiving direct revelation from him to call as Bishop someone whose job it was to (a) engage in deception as a matter of course and (b) invent new ways to inflict pain on his fellow brothers and sisters whom he supposedly views as literally the children of God. I don't think it odd at all for the presently constituted LDS corporation to call such a fellow.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
In the bishop's defense, it should be pointed out that he did not advocate shoving bamboo shoots underneath the clients fingernails, not did he advocate attaching electrodes to their genitals. The last technique is the sole province of the Evergreen Homosexuality Cure Clinic.
The techniques suggested by the bishop have been fully tested and approved by the American Guild of Seekers for Truth and Penitence.
But none of that necessitates that he would perform poorly as a Bishop. Most of your complaints tread over moral grey areas, but nothing that directly impacts his ability to fulfill the role of a bishop.
If there are 2 of you on a life boat starving, does one of you get to kill and cannabalize the other? Or do you both have a moral obligation to both starve to death?
Do you have a moral obligation to die rather than torture some one?
Equality wrote:I think an argument can be made for the use of torture. It's a discussion we ought to have as a nation. Reasonable people can differ on the question, and all can acknowledge there are no easy answers. Whether water boarding should or should not be used in a given situation is a debate worth having. I just don't think we should try to get around the thorniness of the issue by simply declaring that it is not real torture. I don't think someone has to be a right-winger to condone the use of torture in some circumstances (I believe Alan Dershowitz did at one point and I don't know anyone who would call him a right-winger). Anyhow, whether it is ultimately justifiable or not on moral or legal grounds, it strikes me as exceedingly odd to call a CIA guy who invented the technique as a Bishop. And to have no objections from the congregation (yes, I have never seen an objection--the vote always appears "unanimous in the affirmative" Nobody ever objects by making it "manifest by same sign"). And Mormons wonder why people think they are a cult.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
I can sort of remember a time when it was understood to be a characteristic of civilized nations that they did not torture enemies who fell into their hands. Countries used to agree not to do that (and, by the way, those agreements did not have conditions such as 'so long as the enemy plays nice').
But of course that doesn't apply anymore, because our enemies nowadays are quite different from what they used to be - they are bad people who want to hurt us and our loved ones. That brings an entirely new factor into play. So it is quite understandable that things are different, and because we are the good guys we can do what we like, and it's all right.
And of course it isn't torture so long as you don't stick sharp objects into people or hit them, or otherwise cause gross irreversible physical damage. Fortunately, there are other things you can do to people physically that are so unpleasant that even the toughest enemy can't stand having them happen for more than a few minutes, however hard they try. But of course they're not torture, so it's fine.
I can sort of remember a time when it was understood to be a characteristic of civilized nations that they did not torture enemies who fell into their hands.
LOL when was that time?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
