Reply With Quote
I wouldn't target his family. end of story.
The underlying assumption that fatally flaws this entire assertion:
Putting the lives of the enemy as important is not compatible with saving the lives of our own troops.
This statement is directly contradicted by the current counter insurgency doctrine that states that doing things viewed poorly, such as shooting at enemies regardless of the consequences, endangers the overall mission.
I wouldn't target his family. end of story.
This is an invalid question. Becuase the purpose of the question is to undermine a moral action by introducing another moral action (sacrificing an innocent victim) in order to go through with said moral action. This is indeed a lifeboat question. You don't base your ethics on lifeboat questions, you base your ethics on the real metaphysical world, man does not live in lifeboat.
To illustrate the ridiculousness of Chump's sophist proposition:
Person A: Passing progressive tax legislation is moral.
Chumpdumper: What happens if the only way to pass progressive tax legislation is to rape the daughter of the president?
Person A: Oh, progressive taxes are immoral then.
It's an invalid premise by which to undermine premise(x) because it doesn't really address the validity of premise(x), all you really are addressing is whether it's ever ok to rape kids.
All you did is illustrate a reason why you shouldn't nation build.
Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?
I know I'll get a response that tells me I'm an idiot and a re because ad hominen attacks are a liberal favorite, but I I seriously want to understand.
You'd have to have measures in place to enforce unlawful torture of innocents, that way you'd hold the interrogator accountable.
This would force the interrogator more responsible to recieve the right intel.
no one is defending terrorist. you can be a terrorist if someone says you are.
You'll just get a sophist rebuttal like...
If you had to abort kids to fight terrorist, would you do it?
Think about it, if you had an abortion clinic bomber on the skype, and you showed him a fetus, would you abort it in order for him to give you intel?
Also, experts are not the final authority on morality or ethics. Those things should be subject only to the laws of human nature in relation to the universe.
Confirmation bias in action.
The paradox is that by placing the lives of the enemy above that of the troops you are, by expert opinion, protecing the lives of your own troops.
You have therefore asserted that protecting our troops is, in your own words, evil.
I fail to see how that paradox is a "reason why you shouldn't nation build"
If you are trying to assert that fighting counter-insurgency is difficult, so we shouldn't do it, that is a very weak position to take.
If you are trying to assert that the counter-insurgency doctrine is in itself evil because it protects our troops, that is simply dumb.
Which is it, weak argument or dumb argument? Could you clarify which you are shooting for?
abortion = group of cells that aren't viable outside the human body
terrorists = human being
I don't think you will ever find a "liberal running to support terrorists", that is itself a ty strawman argument.
There is a difference between thinking that even terrorists might have rights and actively supporting their cause.
You do see the difference between the two, yes?
No, that's invalid.
The whole concept of Nation building is to sacrifice your resources for the good of a country.
Counter insurgency is a phenomenae of an occupying force involved in nation building.
Our mission should be to remove dictatorships who are an actual existential threat and then get out.
When you have a mission set on expanding the Welfare state for another country, well yeah. The ultimate value is winning public support and putting your troops lives second to it. It's not done by putting your troops lives over public oppinion.
In this case, yes, if you intend on placating your occupied citizenry, you have to sacrifice the goal of protecting your men in order to prevent retaliation against your infantry and your mission.
But the point is, not to get in that situation.
We should never sacrifice our troops for another country. That's immoral.
What do you mean? Care to elaborate?
If an interrogator is torturing an innocent man, he should be penalized, removed from his position based on whether there was negligence.
Not sure what you mean by 'defending a terra-ist'.
That we don't want the US to act like a terror state because we captured an alleged terrerist doesn't mean that anybody is defending him.
Not sure what abortion has to do with it, tbh
The problem is that the interrogator might not be who issued the order.
The point here is that we've had cases of civilian torture with no oversight and complete immunity (and impunity). That puts us closer to the 'bad guys' than the 'good guys'. And that's a slippery slope.
Ah, much better. Thank you.
Standing idly by when genocide is being committed is immoral as well?
And the end of all the thousands of American lives you could have saved.
Good job.
No, apparently you are the final authority on morality and ethics.
Did you get a certificate for it on the internets?
wow, interrogating in your world sounds like a great gig.
I like the part where a man doesn't really have the right to remain silent.
Well I'm flattered, but I'm not nature or the universe for which i try to appeal to.
a man's right's to silence don't supersed another's right to life. If he's caught after the fact, then we can discuss law in which the state is now acting as a retalliatory agent.wow, interrogating in your world sounds like a great gig.
I like the part where a man doesn't really have the right to remain silent.
the issue is torturing enemy combatants not innocent family members.And the end of all the thousands of American lives you could have saved.
Good job.
Why don't you awnser the question i first posed?
lol nature of the universe
Did the nature of the universe write a book?
Is he on twitter?
That combatant is potentially innocent as well, and the family member might not be for all you know. I am talking about torturing innocent family members to save thousands of lives. You would rather let thousands of confirmed innocents die than give one who may or may not be innocent some temporary pain.
Because there is not one set of ethics in the world. That is clearly evident here as you are willing to let thousands of innocents die if the conditions are right.Why don't you awnser the question i first posed?
I disagree.
I'm not sure why anyone would be good with allowing the state to go around causing physical or mental harm to anyone in sight until the desired information is finally received.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions