Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Rhiannon on January 26, 2017, 07:45:10 PM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/comedians/comedian-lee-hurst-fire-torture-remarks/
-
I liked this remark on Twitter:
"Do you pretend to be Alf Garnett on twitter for the attention?"
Being under fire is not always a bad thing for a comedian, they like to push boundaries and create controversy. If he hadn't picked the subject of torture it would have been something equally unpalatable.
-
There some great twitter comments on this.
'Simple. First you row the baby across the river. Then row back and get the time bomb and the goose, leaving the terrorist with the beans.'
-
Even on here no-one will answer Lee Hurst's question - except by not answering it they say "Let the baby die"!
Would I torture him? TOO DAMN RIGHT I WOULD!
-
Yeah, but that says nothing about the use of torture by government.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/26/torture-baby-time-bomb-terrorist-trump-lee-hurst-comedian
-
Yeah, but that says nothing about the use of torture by government.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/26/torture-baby-time-bomb-terrorist-trump-lee-hurst-comedian
I will bet that, to some degree or another, in one form or another, almost all governments use torture.
The only downside is that, as proved during the Witch-trials and under Walsingham, someone under torture will usually tell the torturer what he/she wants to hear, be it truth or lie.
-
I'd torture
Only thing is if, the baby were to die despite my best torturing, I'd continue to torture him till he died a bleeding mess, then I'd find his wife and do the same, then any of his kids, then his siblings, then uncles , aunts, cousins, all family individually tortured and killed, then his friends, work colleagues, his teachers, people who sold him his newspaper, anyone who had been in a photograph with him, all tortured and killed individually. Then people who had the same name, who looked a bit like him if you squinted up your eyes, then people who drove the same car, all tortured and killed individually.
-
I'd torture
Only thing is if, the baby were to die despite my best torturing, I'd continue to torture him till he died a bleeding mess, then I'd find his wife and do the same, then any of his kids, then his siblings, then uncles , aunts, cousins, all family individually tortured and killed, then his friends, work colleagues, his teachers, people who sold him his newspaper, anyone who had been in a photograph with him, all tortured and killed individually. Then people who had the same name, who looked a bit like him if you squinted up your eyes, then people who drove the same car, all tortured and killed individually.
Note to self - DO NOT PISS NS OFF!
-
I'd torture
Only thing is if, the baby were to die despite my best torturing, I'd continue to torture him till he died a bleeding mess, then I'd find his wife and do the same, then any of his kids, then his siblings, then uncles , aunts, cousins, all family individually tortured and killed, then his friends, work colleagues, his teachers, people who sold him his newspaper, anyone who had been in a photograph with him, all tortured and killed individually. Then people who had the same name, who looked a bit like him if you squinted up your eyes, then people who drove the same car, all tortured and killed individually.
Donald? Is that you?
-
Even on here no-one will answer Lee Hurst's question - except by not answering it they say "Let the baby die"!
Would I torture him? TOO DAMN RIGHT I WOULD!
Why? Time and time again it's been demonstrated that information derived from torture is unreliable. You torture him, he tells you how to defuse the bomb, you go to do it and trigger the booby-trap, taking you with the baby...
Whatever the moral arguments against the act of torture itself, and the extension of it into the realm of the purpose of punishment, from a purely pragmatic point of view torture is unreliable. Information derived from torture is unreliable.
That was the case with the Witchfinders, and it remained the case with waterboarding.
If your child is attached to a bomb, give the pliers to the bomb-disposal expert, not the finger-nail removal specialist.
O.
-
Why? Time and time again it's been demonstrated that information derived from torture is unreliable. You torture him, he tells you how to defuse the bomb, you go to do it and trigger the booby-trap, taking you with the baby...
Whatever the moral arguments against the act of torture itself, and the extension of it into the realm of the purpose of punishment, from a purely pragmatic point of view torture is unreliable. Information derived from torture is unreliable.
That was the case with the Witchfinders, and it remained the case with waterboarding.
If your child is attached to a bomb, give the pliers to the bomb-disposal expert, not the finger-nail removal specialist.
O.
Check how many deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were IED's causing thedeaths of bomb-disposal experts.
As NS ost suggests - thee likelihood is tht the baby is going to die - at least you can ensure that the terrorist dies in the same agony as the baby. The difference? The bomb maker deserves it!
-
Torture can never be justified, imo.
-
Tie the terrorist to the bomb. Might be worth a shot?
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/01/27/isis-thank-lee-hurst-for-innovative-baby-strapped-to-time-bomb-idea/
-
As NS ost suggests - thee likelihood is tht the baby is going to die - at least you can ensure that the terrorist dies in the same agony as the baby. The difference? The bomb maker deserves it!
And how does that make us any better than them?
O.
-
Torture can never be justified, imo.
So you would do nothing if YOUR baby were attched to the bomb? I mean other than shit in your knickers?
If your answer is "yes" I am damn glad I was/am not your child!
-
Torture can never be justified, imo.
outrageous!
-
So you would do nothing if YOUR baby were attched to the bomb? I mean other than shit in your knickers?
If your answer is "yes" I am damn glad I was/am not your child!
Wow, all the possibilities in the world, and you reduce it to a false dichotomy of 'become a terrorist' or 'become a statue'.
O.
-
Wow, all the possibilities in the world, and you reduce it to a false dichotomy of 'become a terrorist' or 'become a statue'.
O.
What?
What, precisely, would you do in the quoted circumstances? The bomber is inflicting the most horrific form of psychological pain possible to inflict on any parent - the probability is that this bastard is going to let the baby die, I, for one, am not going to let the bastard live to boast of what he has done and I am not going to let the last few hours of his life be painless!
-
What?
What, precisely, would you do in the quoted circumstances? The bomber is inflicting the most horrific form of psychological pain possible to inflict on any parent - the probability is that this bastard is going to let the baby die, I, for one, am not going to let the bastard live to boast of what he has done and I am not going to let the last few hours of his life be painless!
Im with you mate , threaten my child and I will kill you !
-
Note to self - DO NOT PISS NS OFF!
I was just thinking the same thing :o
-
And how does that make us any better than them?
O.
We are doing it to rescue an innocent baby?
-
Im with you mate , threaten my child and I will kill you !
Yes, ultimately faced with no alternative and no bomb disposal expert on hand, I'd take the law into my own hands.
Torture is nasty though, and I'd hate myself for it.
If anyone had messed with my kids, I'd have done whatever I needed to, to protect them and faced prison afterwards.
If faced with a lone gunman shooting children in a school, and I had the oppotunity I'd shoot him dead to protect the children, even if not mine.
However I'd have to put up with being punished for it, in some cases I guess I'd deem it worth it.
However none of that excuses a government from torturing random people without trial, on land outside their own country, because they are breaking their own human rights laws.
Some of the inmates in guatanmo bay may well not even have any attachment to terrorists, they are brown and Muslim and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They have not been given a fair trial, guilt is assumed and that's not good enough IMO.
That's the problem.
Water boarding non convicted people without trial.
At least with the baby scenario you can be reasonably sure the terrorist is guilty.
-
We are doing it to rescue an innocent baby?
What if he thinks killing your baby will stop babies being killed by your govt? Are you saying he would be right to do so?
-
What if he thinks killing your baby will stop babies being killed by your govt? Are you saying he would be right to do so?
No, but I'm not convinced I'd be right by torturing him to save my baby, but I'm not sure leaving the baby to it, is right either, so I'd go with my heart, and save my baby.
Then spend time in jail probably.
There is no satisfactory answer to this one, except maybe convert him to my way of thinking and that's unlikely in a short period of time.
I'd try and go with the answer I could cope with, I'm not sure I could cope with either letting the baby die or torturing the terrorist tbh.
But I'd have to face the consequences of my choice, afterwards.
I might even have to concede my choice was the wrong one.
But I do what I thought at the time, like a lot of others.
-
No, but I'm not convinced I'd be right by torturing him to save my baby, but I'm not sure leaving the baby to it, is right either, so I'd go with my heart, and save my baby.
Then spend time in jail probably.
There is no satisfactory answer to this one, except maybe convert him to my way of thinking and that's unlikely in a short period of time.
I'd try and go with the answer I could cope with, I'm not sure I could cope with either letting the baby die or torturing the terrorist tbh.
But I'd have to face the consequences of my choice, afterwards.
I might even have to concede my choice was the wrong one.
But I do what I thought at the time, like a lot of others.
What does 'concede my choice was the wrong one' mean to you?
-
What does 'concede my choice was the wrong one' mean to you?
It means it's the courts that ultimately decide if your choice is reasonable under the circumstances. Someone protecting a baby isn't going to be totally rational or as level heading as someone looking on.
I don't have a monopoly on deciding what is right or not, and when things are less fraught emotionally, I might have to accept my emotional reaction wasn't the best.
That's what I mean.
I'm fallable.
-
It means it's the courts that ultimately decide if your choice is reasonable under the circumstances. Someone protecting a baby isn't going to be totally rational or as level heading as someone looking on.
I don't have a monopoly on deciding what is right or not, and when things are less fraught emotionally, I might have to accept my emotional reaction wasn't the best.
That's what I mean.
I'm fallable.
So maybe leaving the decision to someone who is emotionally involved may be the wrong thing in the first place?
-
What?
What, precisely, would you do in the quoted circumstances? The bomber is inflicting the most horrific form of psychological pain possible to inflict on any parent - the probability is that this bastard is going to let the baby die, I, for one, am not going to let the bastard live to boast of what he has done and I am not going to let the last few hours of his life be painless!
I suspect I'd let myself be guided by the security experts, though I'd be steeling myself for the worst. The point of terrorism is to accentuate to people that they are in some way powerless, that things can be done to them despite their best efforts.
The way to fight this is not to rail against it, not to try to prove them wrong, because they aren't. It's to accept that determined people can wreak havoc if they wish, and to live life the right anyway. I don't doubt that'd be a bitter pill to swallow at the time, and I might well give in to anger and rage in that situation, but sat back here I can see that it's not likely to achieve very much.
O.
-
So maybe leaving the decision to someone who is emotionally involved may be the wrong thing in the first place?
I guess that's why they have things like jury's and you are not supposed to know the person being convicted.
I suspect the law would also step in to protect both sides if you had each other's babies.
Vigilantes are often emotionally involved and the law doesn't approve of that either.
But with the baby and bomb scenario, the whole point is it's emotional and what to do if you couldn't pass the decision on to someone else, or diffuse the bomb.
-
I guess that's why they have things like jury's and you are not supposed to know the person being convicted.
I suspect the law would also step in to protect both sides if you had each other's babies.
Vigilantes are often emotionally involved and the law doesn't approve of that either.
But with the baby and bomb scenario, the whole point is it's emotional and what to do if you couldn't pass the decision on to someone else, or diffuse the bomb.
which then validates all emotional decisions and if the terrorist was making one, then Hurst supports the blowing up of the baby.
-
So maybe leaving the decision to someone who is emotionally involved may be the wrong thing in the first place?
And if there are only him and you?
-
I suspect I'd let myself be guided by the security experts, though I'd be steeling myself for the worst. The point of terrorism is to accentuate to people that they are in some way powerless, that things can be done to them despite their best efforts.
The way to fight this is not to rail against it, not to try to prove them wrong, because they aren't. It's to accept that determined people can wreak havoc if they wish, and to live life the right anyway. I don't doubt that'd be a bitter pill to swallow at the time, and I might well give in to anger and rage in that situation, but sat back here I can see that it's not likely to achieve very much.
O.
see #31
-
And if there are only him and you?
Then as stated already it justifies all emotional decisions and if the terrorist made such a decision then you validate his killing the child.
-
Then as stated already it justifies all emotional decisions and if the terrorist made such a decision then you validate his killing the child.
To accept that, you have to accept the terrorist is making an emotional decision, but a lot of terrorists couldn't give a monkeys about any child.
They are cold, and calculating.
Someone who deliberately straps on a bomb jacket, stands in a busy market, where there are children and blows himself up is not doing it because he is emotional.
He is doing it because he is unfeeling and cold, the emotion comes from the victims and their families.
That's why he does it, to play on the emotions and fears of those around him.
If they had any feelings at all, other than anger and hate they wouldn't be getting Muslim children dressed in suicide jackets to blow themselves up in markets.
It happens.
A terrorist is a cold hearted killer, don't expect any mercy from them.
Recently some poor lad of 20 killed himself because he would rather die than fall into the hands of Isis. That's because he knew how cold and unfeeling they are.
The emotion comes from the victim, it's what terrorists do.
Think of those children in Chechnya that time, that got murdered by terrorists.
Those terrorists weren't at all emotional, but cold calculating and nasty. The children were just a means to a political end.
The emotion came from the families and the rest of the world.
It's what they do.
Some people have no regard for life or children, it's what they do.
I'm talking about all sides here. ( depending on who is playing terrorist today)
Your kind emotional people get stuck in the middle of it, Isis kills an awful lot of Muslims.
So does bombing people.
Terrorists are cold hearted killers.
That's why the family with they little boy that drowned were running away.
Running away from cold hearted killers, whether that be planes dropping bombs ( from whoever) or Potty so called Islamic terrorists.
It's very sad.
The vast majority of Muslims are very nice people, but some of them are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
They run because terrorists of all stripes are cold hearted killers.
If a baby was strapped to a bomb by some terrorist, it's just a means to an end, a statistic towards a political goal.
That's why I'd kill him, because he's a cold hearted killer who "doesn't care."
It's survival.
-
So now you are saying you are making a cold hearted rational decision about survival in killing the terrorist? So when the terrorist makes a cold hearted rational decision that they think it's the best way to protect their people, then you validate that.
-
And President Trump added to the mix, with his attitude to torture of people that have not even had a fair trial, fills me with a sense of foreboding.
That's before we talk about his pussy grabbing, perception of women.
It's a disaster.
>:(
-
So now you are saying you are making a cold hearted rational decision about survival in killing the terrorist? So when the terrorist makes a cold hearted rational decision that they think it's the best way to protect their people, then yph validate that.
No mine is based on saving an innocent baby, which is emotional. I would never strap a baby to a bomb in the first place.
I'd never strap a baby to a bomb to gain a political advantage.
He would.
That's the difference.
-
How can I put it.
If the uk was invaded by a foreign country and I became a freedom fighter, I would never strap a baby to a bomb. I would not fight by deliberately targeting women and children. The fight would be with the ruling country, not their citizens.
The parents are not responsible for the political decisions of their country, and the baby is more than a statistic or a means to an end.
IMO a babies life is worth more than just being a pawn, even if the baby is on " the other side"
-
How is killing him saving the baby? In the scenario that means the baby dies.
-
How is killing him saving the baby? In the scenario that means the baby dies.
It doesn't so you would have to tailor it to the individual circumstances, to save the baby.
But enough about me.
What would be your solution?
-
The issue is about whether you are more likely to get the information you need to save the baby by torturing the terrorist or by offering him/her a cup of tea and biscuit or maybe a free pass. One of the stock "24" dilemmas. Usually the answer is to get hold of the terrorist's baby and offer to torture that.
-
It doesn't so you would have to tailor it to the individual circumstances, to save the baby.
But enough about me.
What would be your solution?
I've already given mine and pointed out what I think the problems with it would be. And that's why it's not that useful as a dilemma.