Like you said it's an double edged sword.
You might save lifes by torturing a terrorist or evildoer of some sorts, but you also might be torturing an innocent person or get false information.
It's hard to say right and wrong in a situation like this, comparable to the pcifism ideology, I myself don't believe in violence, but I'm not an absolute pacifist, in a situation where I can save someone dear to me (like a wife or kid) I will use violence.
If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that.
I'd even enjoy it. 
If more then one life depends on it, I'd torture the guy. No question about that.
What if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok?
Quote from GrayFoxWhat if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok?
In extreme cases, say if a terrorist is arrested and is suspected that have hidden a nuclearbomb that is about to go off?
Is this even a question? No, torture is never okay.
What if you were innocent and tortured because someone thought you had information that could save people? You'd still think it's ok?
In extreme cases, say if a terrorist is arrested and is suspected that have hidden a nuclearbomb that is about to go off?
I don't believe you. Or perhaps you can't imagine well enough what it would be like...
I hate pacifists... 
Oh, and GreyFox, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to do it. I also think it would be my responsabillity to do so. To say I'd enjoy it was a joke. Maybe not the most suited one. Sorry for that.
Yes I would feel sick after torturing a guy but if I would be 100% sure about the fact that I could save innoncent lives with it, I do it.
That's just my view on this case.
never ever
EVER.
Then the blood of the innocent victims would be on your hands... 
Of course this situation is totally hypothetic. 
I hate pacifists...
Yes I would feel sick after torturing a guy but if I would be 100% sure about the fact that I could save innoncent lives with it, I do it.
That's just my view on this case.
Note, that I specifically meant that YOU are the subject to torture. You changing your mind now? Still think it would be ok?
Torture is an extremely shortsighted solution, and in this case, to an extremely shortsighted war. If you think the you can chase terrorism as a mentality off the planet using guns and bombs, you are so horribly mistaken. Take away their capability to strike? Possibly, there is absolutely no guarantee you will take out the whole network and even if you do it would take years upon years and spill way too much of your own (and innocent) blood. If you want to get rid of an issue, you attack it at its root, not the resultant problem.
That being said, go ahead and torture him. Just don't think that when and if he gets released, it won't radicalize those around him. These people don't go home and shut up and don't tell anyone what happened to them. They go home, tell the people they meet what the country that is supposedly liberating their region and spreading peace did to them, and they too will pick up arms and fight.
It's got nothing to do with pacifism, and everything to do with common sense. 50 years on, we'll still be fighting this war if we don't adopt a different style of fighting. And there will still be politicians milking it for support, and there will still be Volvo-driving soccer moms who fear going shopping at their local Walmart in Nowheresville, USA because they think a Middle-Eastern from Egypt who is completely radicalized by Islam and wants to kill all Americans is going to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. And it won't happen, but it could, and that's all that matters.
thing is, the people in gitmo aren't going home. that's another problem.
torture is wrong.
It's not a question of what happens after person is tortured, and how will it effect those around him. Terrorists in most cases.. oh who am I kidding, in EVERY case are not wrap so tight, so do you really think that the fact that someone was tortured has any effect at all?
It is a moral issue, if we see necessary to torture someone, how we are any better than the person who makes sneak attacks at our country?
I don't think that torture is right in any case, not even the most extreme case.
dude #1 - "dude #2 is a pacifist"
dude #3 - "pacifist? you mean a BITCH"
dude #2 - "hey man if thats what you wanna call it"
thats a true story, and what a hardcore pacifist he is
dude is a real pacifist
dude #2 - "hey man if thats what you wanna call it"
I think that it is very common answer if you ask anyone about something like that. I myself am a civilservice man (I didn't go to the army), pacifist to certain extent, and I have been absolutist and a vegan, so you can imagine that combination in a country where people still worship people who go to the army (around 70-80% of young men in Finland go to army) and are all around walking hardons, the amount of wise cracking assjockeys I have tolerated so it is very common for a guy like me to say "just call it what the fuck floats your boat I simply couldn't give rats ass about your narrowminded views."
So give a break and stop grinding everyones ass.
Quote from KosmoI myself am a civilservice man (I didn't go to the army)
You missed an experience of a lifetime. I didn't find the army to be a very violent place. Sure they teach you how to shoot and fight but you don't do those things to others. Shooting at some targets and punching some bags is no worse than killing people in video games. Totally harmless.
So pacifists that don't go to the army for that reason and still play violent games are, to some extent, hypocrates (IMO).
Maybe my view is a bit black and white at the moment. I need to meditate on this. 
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
