No kidding. I suppose this is what happens when you're bored at 4:15 AM, go and argue about waterboarding on an internet dating site.

I should get a hobby. Like making arts and crafts with popscicle sticks, or chain smoking.

"Because if you lie to safe a life that is simply the right and moral thing to do, especially if you believe or know that telling the truth would result in harm coming to a person."

Right. So, you're making an exception. You are saying that lying, something generally accepted to be wrong, is not wrong, and okay if it's done to save someone. This is called justification. It's clear that you believe wrong things can be justified. Yet torture, another "wrong thing" cannot be justified, even IF it saves the lives of innocent people? That's a complete incongruity in your moral code that you haven't explained.

"I'm really surprised you can't figure that out."

Do I sense slight condescension? Anyways,you haven't really explained. You just stated that lying is okay if done to save another. You didn't explain how lying to save someone makes lying not wrong anymore. Does a right justify a wrong? You're saying it does.

"It's about respect for life and humanity. Its about compassion for your fellow human being. It's NOT about some rules, regulations, or even laws.

Its about doing the right thing."

Yes, that's what this entire debate is about. I don't really know what you're trying to take a stab at here...


"For one, yes, they have tortured innocents who where merely suspects. They don't even bother to apologize.

Secondly, that they actually have the power to do so without over site should be great cause for alarm.

Unlimited power always leads to abuse of power."

Like..who? And when I ask who, I ask for people that have been waterboarded and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that were innocent. Exonerated. Can you show me a case where this has happened?

"I am responsible only for my own actions and my own moral fiber. I would never become a high or even low ranking CIA operative. I consider them to be as bad as Hitler's secret service and Mossad assassins."

Just because you're responsible for your own moral fiber, doesn't necessarily mean that frees you of any obligation to others. You are telling me that if you say, refused to waterboard someone, and this refusal lead to the eventual deaths of innocent people, then oh well? They died, not my fualt? Shrug it off, go eat dinner peacefully the next day? When you see someone bullied, do you tell yourself "I'm responsible for my own moral fiber" and walk on by? If everyone told themselves they were responsible for their own moral fiber as an excuse not to intervene on the behalves of other people, the world would be a much darker place than it already is.

*shrug*

I'm no scientist, but if you have a better theory in mind, let's hear it. Even a quick google search can show the multiple things that indicate a big bang, i.e an expanding universe, comsic background radiation, etc.

Though I will definitley concede my point about the scientific community being completely open to new ideas. It IS true, many in the field are hardened and prideful intellectuals.

Alright, fair enough. I can safely assume that if you lived in the 1940's, you would have told the truth to an inquiring nazi officer. Lying is wrong. You told the truth after all. You can't let anything compromise your good, honest character. If they want to gas up some Jews, it's on their head, right? You just wash your hands of it? Is that it, then?

Guilt also is distributed to the people that have power to stop something. If you see a bully picking on someone in school, and you have the power to stop him (Let's say your twice his size and you have a blackbelt) then you're equally responsible for that particular victims suffering. While you may not believe that a particular persons inaction is reason enough to hold them morally accountable, U.S. law happens to disagree. It's the entire reason why we have negligence charges in this country and elsewhere.

As far as the notion of torture being used eventually on civillians, that's a slippery slope argument. Unless you can prove with evidence that your particular assumption is true, it doesn't really carry any weight. You know all those Evangelical Republican politicians that argue if gay marriage is legalized, that polygamy and beastiality will be legalized too? It's kind of like that. If you're going to argue that A does indeed lead to B, you have to show it. Not assume it.

If it is against your own moral fiber, then that is perfectly fine. Don't torture anyone, or needless to say, don't become a high ranking CIA operative stationed in Guantanomo. It's one thing to have your own moral code, it's another thing to assert it as an asbolute moral truth and demand that your respective government conform to it.


"No, lying is not always wrong. Where did you get that idea? "

It's the same principle. Why is torture always wrong, and lying not always wrong? Both things are considered by and large, bad deeds. You don't do them. It's a no no. You make an exception it seems for one, but not the other? Why is that?

For myself at least, it's not so much a question of "Is it torture" but more of "Do I even care if it's torture?" If you are a government officer leading an interrogation, and terrorist is before you that likely has key information on an attack, what are you to do when all the cookie cutter approved interrogation techniques don't work? Offer candy upon a silver platter? Usually I'm not a very big supporter of the "Ends justify the means" mantra, but consider a situation like this one.

You're interrogating a captured terrorist. You know that his group plans to plant several bombs in the greater New York city area. You don't know the location of the bombs. You don't know the names of the others planning the attack. You have three days until the planned attack unfolds. Said attack could potentially kill hundreds of people. The man your interrogating is a Muslim extremist, and will not give up any information lightly because he believes he is God's own instrument to carry out his will. What do you do? Do you brush aside the option of waterboarding based on some flimsy moral absolute you're standing upon? Which guilt would you rather live with for the rest of your life? Waterboarding someone? Or potentially letting innocent citizens lose their life? War is messy, and in it we don't always have the option of choosing between the absolute right thing to do, and the absolute wrong thing to do. It can become a game of picking your poison, so to speak.

I often find people that are so adamant about making waterboarding illegal on the basis that it's such a grave human rights violation somewhat naive. It's also a little out of step to label those that advocate waterboarding as "just as bad as the terrorists." Really? Please. Setting up a false scale or moral equivalency like that really helps nothing. Waterboarding, as immoral as you may believe it to be, doesn't hold a candle to blowing up buildings, using human shields, and all those other things terrorists like to do for fun nowadays.

But in summary, if I had to torture someone to extract sensitive information that could save the lives of many innocent people, I would. Would I feel good about it? No. Would I lose sleep over it? Probably. What I definitley couldn't cope with though, is knowing that innocent people died because of my inaction.

This whole question is really very similar to a question I've heard before. That being, "If a nazi comes to your door asking whether or not you are hiding Jews, what do you do?" Lying is wrong, isn't it? Isn't lying always wrong? What could possibly justify lying? I bet 90% of the people saying how evil waterboarding is, would have lied through their teeth to protect Jews in the 1940's. So, do you tell the truth and have a bunch of innocent people slaughtered, gassed to death, incinerated?

Working from immovable moral absolutes is extremely dangerous.

Well, despite how crazy Michelle Bachman may be, I believe you're taking her quote a little out of context. I truly don't believe she's as insane to believe that everyone who is unemployed should just starve to death. She's talking about those who refuse to work, will not work, leech off the government when they have the means and the tools TO work. In which case, I completely agree with her.

A man that refuses to work should starve. No one deserves to eat the fruit of someone elses labor. Period.

Well, one would initially think that the big bang theory violates the law of conservation of energy. However, if there was no universe before the big bang, then all the established laws that govern our universe wouldn't logically apply.

That's not to say that the big bang theory solves all the mysteries and complexities of the universe. There are definite problems with the theory. However, it's the best explanation we have at the moment. The beauty of science is that it changes and perfects itself as new, fresh knowledge is learned. If someone else offers an equally plausible theory, with an equal amount of evidence supporting it, I'm sure the scientific community won't scoff at the idea.