Reply With Quote
freeloaders are evil, unless you're republican.
Yes
No
It doesn't matter. Evilness is independent of whether or not you torture people.
Let's see what an informal poll pulls up.
BEGIN EDIT, probably a day too late:
This question is to be taken on its face, with no other intended or implied interpretations.
It was not intended to be code words for "if I torture terrorists..."
I am simply trying to determine if it is reasonable to conclude that someone is evil if you know nothing about them other than the fact that they torture other people. No more, no less.
I hope that helps clarify the issue.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-05-2008 at 11:21 AM.
freeloaders are evil, unless you're republican.
Rephrase the question:
"I torture a terrorist because I know he has information that will save innocent lives. Am I evil?"
A) Yes
B) No
C) It won't make a difference. Those who believe I'm evil won't change their opinion and those who don't will understand the rationale.
Try that one.
Not the torture, but only because you're human. And apparently Jesus absolves you of this, if you so choose, so just accept Christ and you'll be good to go. But I can't vote three, because I feel that being a torturer would work to enhance the evilness that is already inherently human. And I'm not sure about Jesus's views on the extra evil amongst us- they might be ed.
Or--
Can Yoni provide any credible evidence when torture saved innocent lives?
a--yes, but the evidence will cite only hearsay about some vague information that probably saved lives somewhere at some time.
b--no
c--he should go back to plagarizing bloggers
D) Life is exactly like 24.
The colon after the question mark was pretty evil.
If you torture a terrorist, you are my friend.
Please define "torture"--otherwise, yes you're evil for making such a stupid poll.
Rendition was a great movie...
I believe we should invest in thought extraction technologies (i.e. true lie detection capability - currently being developed at MIT)... that type of technology would definitely solve this dilemma... among other things, such as:
Prevent innocent people from ending up in our penitentiary system.
Reduce fraudulent litigation, which in turn would reduce:
--Attorney costs
--Insurance costs
--Court costs
--Prison costs
--Price of healthcare
Reduce fraudulent en lement to federal aid, which in turn would reduce:
--Magnitude of federal aid.
--Number of lazy people who take themselves out of the workforce at taxpayers expense...
--amount of red-tape required for people to receive genuinely needed aid.
--Price of medicine...
This type of technology would solve many of our society's problems if properly used. It would push people towards truthful living... because you wouldn't be able to lie to judges, juries, government workers, police, insurance adjusters etc...
Does the wishful end justify the evil means?
Horribly written question, as in general torturing is seen as a vicious crime and tediously evil technique with selfish payoff with a consensus going to pretty much say that yes, you are evil if you do that.
However if you meant torture in a war-like sense against terrorists, while still I believe torture in that way is just as bad as they'd do to people (we are above terrorists in terms of what we should do), it can be disputed greatly through people's perspectives about what it could accomplish.
Thought extraction technologies? are you ing serious?
Ok--well I guess there goes any remaining semblance of free society, how's it going big brother?
Its all going to in a handbasket anyway. I'm just trying to save enough money to get off the grid.
http://io9.com/5050009/indian-court-...ence-of-murder
When 24 year-old Aditi Sharma was tried for the murder of her former fiance, her brain was the chief witness for the prosecution. Sharma had submitted to the highly controversial Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test (BEOS), now employed by prosecutors in the Indian states of Maharashta and Gujarat. Going beyond lie detection, the BEOS test is supposedly able to identify whether an individual possesses memories related to a specific event. And Sharma's conviction represents the first time an Indian court has accepted the BEOS results as proof of guilt, although neuroscientists remain skeptical about the technology's reliability.
Prosecution offices in India have set up labs to examine suspects who submit to the test. When areas of the brain associated with memory, such as those dealing with smell and sound, light up during the description of a crime, prosecutors see that as evidence of the subject's commission of the crime:
Ms. Sharma, 24, agreed to take a BEOS test in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra. (Suspects may be tested only with their consent, but forensic investigators say many agree because they assume it will spare them an aggressive police interrogation.)
After placing 32 electrodes on Ms. Sharma's head, investigators said, they read aloud their version of events, speaking in the first person (“I bought arsenic”; “I met Udit at McDonald's”), along with neutral statements like “The sky is blue,” which help the software distinguish memories from normal cognition.
For an hour, Ms. Sharma said nothing. But the relevant nooks of her brain where memories are thought to be stored buzzed when the crime was recounted, according to Mr. Joseph, the state investigator. The judge endorsed Mr. Joseph's assertion that the scans were proof of “experiential knowledge” of having committed the murder, rather than just having heard about it.
Previously, Indian courts had accepted BEOS results only as corroborating evidence, not proof in itself of criminal activity. Citing the seriousness of the outcome (Sharma received a life sentence), many neuroscientists and bioethicists in the US have stated that the technology, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, has entered the legal system far too soon. But even if these supposed mind-reading technologies never meet the evidentiary standards of courts outside of India, other possible public and private uses exist:
No Lie MRI, a company in California, promises on its Web site to use the scans to help with developing interpersonal trust and military intelligence, among other tasks. In August, a committee of the National Research Council in Washington predicted that, with greater research, brain scans could eventually aid “the acquisition of intelligence from captured unlawful combatants” and “the screening of terrorism suspects at checkpoints.”
who you mean the axis of evil, does it have to do with something like iran and north korea, i havent heard of those in a long time either.
Am I the only one that had the balls to answer "no" to this question?
With proper regulation this would be much better than having innocent people end up in prison, or the 'need' for torture, or having a society where people lie to the government for handouts knowing fully well that they are capable of working. This would help healthcare become more affordable, and drive every known insurance cost down. ''Freedoms'' would not be relinquished unless you were knowingly trying to deceive the government.
I'm not talking about The Riddler's technology here... I'm talking about an improved lie-detection test.
What would Washington do?
No to torture. It's not American.
The last 2 answers are both no. One just has more detail.
I remember reading a story, I'm not sure if it was in Chechnya or Afghanistan, but the story goes something like this. A Russian soldier is wounded and unable to move. He was nailed to a cross by his captors and his penis was cut off and stuffed in his mouth. He was left to bleed out. If I remember correctly, this was done to him by civilians.
Was that done to him because the Russians waterboarded three Chechnyans or Afghanis?
Just curious.
I don't recall. War is not pretty.
For the record, I'm against the US Govt randomly selecting people for torture. Some people seem to think that's what's going on.
Yeah, I've noticed.
Arrgh. Sorry man.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
