Lee Hurst's Insights into Torture

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Owlswing]

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?

[Owlswing]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

 

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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"

[Nearly Sane]

How is killing him saving the baby? In the scenario that means the baby dies.

[Bubbles]

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?

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.