Torture

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

s09119,

One is a sexual act that achieves nothing substantial, one is an intelligence-gathering act that can provide information to save lives. Completely different circumstances, and you bringing it up is no different from opponents of same-sex marriage comparing said institution to incest to drive a debate off track.

It's the "can" in your quoted post that is problematic. Is the torture of innocents justified because if they had tortured the right person it may have provided actionable intellegence. I say no. Unless you are willing to condone the torture of innocents and the delay such torture and the lies spouted by the right party may engender torture is an unprofitable activity for intellegence gathering agencies.

I'm quite clearly not willing to condone those things and I think torture of anyone is flat out immoral.

[Shai Hulud]

I do understand what point you were trying to make, in relation to girls in their mid teens getting married off etc, but paeodophilia is no laughing matter. Under no context.

I wasnt laughing at the phenomenon, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.

[Phenom]

I wasnt laughing at the phenomenon, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.

I don't see the hypocrisy relating to men having sex with children. Pretty black and white in my book.

[Shai Hulud]

I don't see the hypocrisy relating to men having sex with children. Pretty black and white in my book.

Did you even bother reading my original post or just bash out that reply in the heat of the moment? Oh and I take it that you dont consider women capable of 'paedophillia' then, as you limit your reply to just men?

[Blackhole]

It has nothing to do with a "pound of flesh" or "retribution gained". Maybe you should stick to your own feelings on the subject rather than trying to tell me what mine are, because none of what you just wrote is correct.

Sami said:

I really can't disagree with torture on the basis of the pain/anguish it causes, human beings are resilient and I think we're becoming very soft and squeamish to such things. The only real arguments that I think hold value on the subject and are relevant to the opposing side are related to effectiveness. The question of torturing innocents is all down to competency of the individuals involved and really have nothing to do with the issue of torture itself and as I stated; humans are resilient - we can handle it.

Blackhole said:

Trying to logically argue the value of compassion or empathy to someone is pointless. Either they have it or they don't. For many torture supporters the feelings of protection and pound of flesh retribution gained from the practice more than overrides any sense of compassion or fair play they may have. As long as they don't know who is being tortured and it isn't directing impacting their lives the suffering imposed on others isn't important to them.

Given your statement - "I really can't disagree with torture on the basis of the pain/anguish it causes, human beings are resilient and I think we're becoming very soft and squeamish to such things." - where you cavalierly and callously dismiss the pain and suffering that is by its very clear definition at the heart of what the brutal practice of torture entails; I stand by my statement as an accurate reflection into the soul of most torture supporters.

[Phenom]

Did you even bother reading my original post or just bash out that reply in the heat of the moment? Oh and I take it that you dont consider women capable of 'paedophillia' then, as you limit your reply to just men?

Yes I read your post. All of it. Did you want a round of applause for the remainder of your comments that I didn't respond to in my post? Although I agree with a small part of the sentiment in your initial post, the passion you obviously hold for it comes across as aggressive and doesn't sit right with me. Your posts and opinions, whether you want them too or not, allow us the readers to build a personality profile of you. Yours my friend does not provide for good reading.

And yes women are capable of paedophilia too. However when 99.99% of the offenders are male, it is fairly safe to mention the word male in my post.

[Sami_]

Given your statement - "I really can't disagree with torture on the basis of the pain/anguish it causes, human beings are resilient and I think we're becoming very soft and squeamish to such things." - where you cavalierly and callously dismiss the pain and suffering that is by its very clear definition at the heart of what the brutal practice of torture entails; I stand by my statement as an accurate reflection into the soul of most torture supporters.

Nothing I said indicated retribution and nothing I said indicated that I found it okay as long as I didn't know who was being tortured but keep standing by your baseless opinion.

You just seem to extrapolate what you want from whatever people write.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Round and round in circles, and yet most people here are missing the point entirely. Everyone is talking about torture and its part in society. This post is a perfect example of missing the point.

Torture is used when reason fails and the society has become barbaric. The use of torture even if to get information only serves to remind us that anyone could be subject to it. Destiny's crew should be made aware of what transpired.

Your all focusing on things like state endorsed torture and how we deal with torture as a society, but what we have here is not torture in society, it is part of what happens in a military situation. And the military fall completely outside normal society and when it comes to the battlefield normal morality falls completely by the wayside, its kill or be killed. An officers first duty is to their men and women, many will not think twice about threatening prisoners if it yields information that can save the people's lives under their command. Morality falls by the wayside on the battlefield, you do what you need to do to survive and nothing is going to change that.

Crimes like the cold blooded execution of prisoners and the abuse of civilians remain universily reviled war crimes because they have to take place off the battlefield, you don't have time to be doing these things in a battlefield situation. But there have been plenty of situations throughout history and even today of troops pressing attacks on enemies and not giving them the chance to surrender because they simply can't afford to take prisoners, of troops having to loot to survive and of troops killing civilians who have become involved in combat situations. Morality will always take a back seat in a military situation, that's the way it works and the only way you will get people through alive. And people can argue back and forth about how barbaric torture is and how a civilised society shouldn't do it, well in military situations, barbarism has already taken over, society in that situation has fallen apart enough require to use of force.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM6P,

Correct me if I'm wrong but torture of POWs is a war crime as well, isn't it? Additionally, the excegiences of battle is a well made point. I may not agree with the choices made but I can understand why they were made.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

TM6P,

Correct me if I'm wrong but torture of POWs is a war crime as well, isn't it? Additionally, the excegiences of battle is a well made point. I may not agree with the choices made but I can understand why they were made.

As I pointed out, not letting your enemy surrender, looting and killing unarmed civilians are also classified as War crimes. But they've all happened frequently and no ones being charged because in many cases there are good reasons why they happened. Stuff like the Geneva Convention is regarded as joke by most people in the military, you can't legislate and make rules about what happens on a battlefield.

[Shai Hulud]

Your posts and opinions, whether you want them too or not, allow us the readers to build a personality profile of you. Yours my friend does not provide for good reading.

Go on then, surprise me, what 'personality profile' have you come up with for me from a section of posts in which im trying to explain that morality, right and wrong are social conventions which vary from society to society?

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Torture can be effective in extracting useful intelligence in the same way that gambling can be effective as a sustainable source of income.......

1st green of the day

What exactly is your definition of torture? Are you thinking 'baddie in james bond' type torture or what you saw in this ep? I.e a bit of punching and kicking in a fair fight (he wasn't tied up and was able to fight back) with a bit of air taken away which was all bluff and everyone knew it.

Seems to be an overarching definition of torture in this thread that covers everything from bashing a bloke over the head with a phone book, to cutting off his nuts with a blunt knife. Although some of the more self righteous may have you believe there is no difference, ask that to the guy who got hit by the phone book and still has his tackle firmly between his legs.

I completely agree that the word torture has been, well, tortured, in this thread. I don't believe that Young is torturing anyone.

Spirit of Geneva?! Hahaha. The USA urinated on the Geneva Convention from a great great height when they passed the Patriot Act of 2001. Also urinated on the constitutional rights of its own citizens and that old favourite of judicial systems around the world, Habeas Corpus. Who needs to bring defendants before a judge and a court of law, just chuck them in a cell somewhere and forget about them. Just another mile down the road to the Police State!

I was making an effort not to name names

...what we have here is not torture in society, it is part of what happens in a military situation. And the military fall completely outside normal society and when it comes to the battlefield normal morality falls completely by the wayside, its kill or be killed. .....

I get it and yes, how the military treats members of the military is different. I don't think for a second that Young is torturing Telford. Then again, I'm not buying the "military dictatorship" or anything else that gets casually tossed around either. Telford has been around long enough to know the score. If we talk about states torturing people, then yes, most of the points here have been quite valid. But it didn't happen in the episode. Nothing even close happened in the episode. And why the hell pedophilia has been brought up in this thread is beyond me as that definitely hasn't happened.

[Shai Hulud]

Round and round in circles, and yet most people here are missing the point entirely. Everyone is talking about torture and its part in society. This post is a perfect example of missing the point.



Your all focusing on things like state endorsed torture and how we deal with torture as a society, but what we have here is not torture in society, it is part of what happens in a military situation. And the military fall completely outside normal society and when it comes to the battlefield normal morality falls completely by the wayside, its kill or be killed. An officers first duty is to their men and women, many will not think twice about threatening prisoners if it yields information that can save the people's lives under their command. Morality falls by the wayside on the battlefield, you do what you need to do to survive and nothing is going to change that.

Crimes like the cold blooded execution of prisoners and the abuse of civilians remain war crimes because they have to take place off the battlefield, you don't have time to be doing these things in a battlefield situation. But there have been plenty of situations throughout history and even today of troops pressing attacks on enemies and not giving them the chance to surrender because they simply can't afford to take prisoners, of troops having to loot to survive and of troops killing civilians who have become involved in combat situations. Morality will always take a back seat in a military situation, that's the way it works and the only way you will get people through alive. And people can argue back and forth about how barbaric torture is and how a civilised society shouldn't do it, well in military situations, barbarism has already taken over, society in that situation has fallen apart enough require to use of force.

Green for that post. FWIW Telford hasnt been tortured, he's had a bit of a kicking off of Greer because he reacted to Young's questioning / probing in a violent manner. Its not as if they have been threading barbed wire through his scrotum for the fun of it.

[Lahela]

Seriously? Young is not torturing Telford? There's no difference between confining someone to a room and venting the atmosphere, and restraining them while you hold their head under water. Both will lead to death by suffocation of one form or another, and both would be well and truly within any definition of torture.

And don't come back with that line about Young not intending to go through with it. I don't believe for a second that a military person in his position would ever make a threat he would not carry out.

[blackluster]

Slowly denying someone of air unless they render information is not considered torture? I thought it was pretty well understood that threatening death or simulating slow death with the purpose of extracting information is torture. I'm not sure what else it could be defined as. Friendly persuasion doesn't seem to cover what Young is doing.