Adventure-Dude

Save a Few but Kill many

▼

Save a Few but Kill many

An article about Political Correctness.

from JoeUser Forums
Recently the discussion about US torturing people at Guantanamo Bay has made its way into the media.

A campaign led by Hillary Clinton and other heavy left leaning politicians are taking a more 'Politically Correct' view of torture saying it should be banned.

Let me begin with the definition from dictionary.com

political correctness

noun:
avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

While I support the underlying principles of seeking political correctness, I think that Political Correctness is going way beyond the balance it is intended to create.

Here is why:

- Terrorism is not new it’s been around for a very long time (ie, Pirates, Tartars, etc).
- Are the Terrorist socially disadvantaged or discriminated against? Those in Guantanamo Bay are the ones that the CIA, FBI, DHS, etc deem from investigations as being linked or associated with terrorist connections. Answer: No.
- These politicians are more concerned about the welfare of the few while neglecting a much larger whole by putting them at risk.


The fundamental question I think needs to be answered BEFORE anyone even takes a stance on their view on torture.

Which do you value more? Knowingly imprisoning a few innocent people at the risk of saving a whole city or Risking a whole city by not imprisoning a few innocent people?

NOTE: The few innocent people that are imprisoned with the guilty.

This question is not easy by any means but this question is real but it seems to me that Hillary and others support the latter of the question.

JU what are your thoughts?
18,882 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is the real issue here. Some folks seem to have a problem distinguishing between the words torture and interrogation. True torture, inflicting of extreme pain such as using a half inch drill on the knee caps, is wrong. Interrogation is necessary.


Ok Mason I'll totally accept that.

Is this where the 'gray zone' begins? Distinguishing what is torture and what are allowable methods of interrogation?


Yes, that's the real point of contention in this issue IMHO.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The knowingly is just my perspective. Do I think everyone in jail today did the crimes they are accused of? Not hardly. Vast Majority are but I 'know' that there are a few who are innocent, just hard to tell who.


OT Alert

Arg, but then there is the rub. WHICH ones? No one in jail is there because everyone thought them innocent. Even the innocent ones are jailed because (rightly or wrongly) someone thinks they did it or something. So the issue of "knowingly jailing innocents" is a red herring. In some places it happens. And even here in some cases I am sure. But not as a policy of by most of this country (no one can speak for every corrupt citizen).
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can you give effective interrogation tactics that don't border torture?


Well, if you want to be anal about it then everything can be torture or borders torture. I'm not a sadistic mastermind...well, on second thought I am...I have some crazy things in my head. I can mindfuck someone given enough time, however, that brings up the whole debate of mental/physical torture. Physical torture is the ineffective one, plain and simple. Mental torture could work...but will leave a person severely damaged....whether or not that seems ethical is up to whoever's doing the torturing, I guess. Fear, intimidation, drug induced states, and things like that I suppose are decent interrogation techniques...if the person is bad enough to deserve it, that is.

~Zoo
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

and are you able to accept that few innocents are mistakenly tortured in order to protect civilians?


Didn't I answer that question a few comments earlier?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, if you want to be anal about it then everything can be torture or borders torture.


Not trying to be anal just trying to get people to think and hear different perspectives on the issue through questions.

Physical torture is the ineffective one, plain and simple. Mental torture could work...but will leave a person severely damaged....whether or not that seems ethical is up to whoever's doing the torturing, I guess. Fear, intimidation, drug induced states, and things like that I suppose are decent interrogation techniques...if the person is bad enough to deserve it, that is.


Let me make sure I understand your perspective.

Just as we have punishment that 'fits' the crime your position is similar when it comes to 'mental torture' (through various means that you pointed out) the level of torture is warranted by the 'threat' level?

So in my example a higher level of torture would be justified whereas severe torture for a 'non-threat' would simply be intolerable.

Have I understood your point?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Didn't I answer that question a few comments earlier?


It seemed to me that your comments wavered from one side to another.