> Call me a troll but you should check your moral compass. Do not argue for the torture, psychological or physical, of others if you cannot hack or attempt to at least once.
That's a weird line of reasoning. For example, according to you, I shouldn't have an opinion on death penalty unless I'm willing to see what it does?
Besides, the debate is not whether torture hurts the victim or not: everybody on either side of that fence knows that it does.
The question is: is torture ever justified?
Surely I can have an opinion on this without having to lie down and have gallons of water poured into my mouth through a cloth?
> Surely I can have an opinion on this without having to lie down and have gallons of water poured into my mouth through a cloth?
You certainly are entitled to having an opinion on anything. Personally, on topics such as water-boarding, I will lend much greater credence to someone that has experienced water-boarding.
> the debate is not whether torture hurts the victim or not: everybody on either side of that fence knows that it does. The question is: is torture ever justified?
To determine whether torture is justified you need to know both the costs, and the benefits. It's far too simplistic to say the "cost" of torture is that "it hurts the victim". Pain isn't a binary condition. How much pain is being inflicted? For how long? Is it permanent? Is the psychological trauma of the fear of death part of the calculation?
I won't go so far as 616c as saying "Don't argue for it", but I will say "Expect a less serious consideration of your arguments from me".
What I was saying is that it is morally reprehensible to find ways to justify torture. If that does not work for you and you need to reconsider your side-stepping passive support of something so abhorrent, go the empirical way and try it. You will realize then why no person should have to go through it, even if you think there is a good reason. No one stands up to torture well for any given period of time, or no one would use it.
That's a weird line of reasoning. For example, according to you, I shouldn't have an opinion on death penalty unless I'm willing to see what it does?
Besides, the debate is not whether torture hurts the victim or not: everybody on either side of that fence knows that it does.
The question is: is torture ever justified?
Surely I can have an opinion on this without having to lie down and have gallons of water poured into my mouth through a cloth?