jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (19 posts)

Uncrossable Lines

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Should certain actions always be refrained from because they are "crimes against humanity?"

    I believe some actions are never justifiable, with the obvious example being torture.  Those who favor torture often use the ticking time bomb scenario to pitifully attempt to scare us into thinking that torture could have a sort of "pragmatic justification." 

    Would these same defenders be okay with raping a man's wife in front of him to make him talk (assuming she was part of the plot)?  I think the answer for most people is that no, rape is always and forever WRONG.  But, for a defender of torture, the answer is not so simple.  Even the threat of sexual violation could scare the criminal into talking, at least according to the pragmatic justification defenders of torture employ. 

    Any line of argument that could ever justify rape should give one pause.

    Why the special pleading for torture then?

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are a very thoughtful person. I believe there are indeed boundaries.  These boundaries define the difference between civilization and barbaric practices.  The line of what defines torture have been so murky the last 100 years that our society seems to accepts torture without a peep.
      You mention torture as something being done to make someone talk and give information.  You don't mention torture intended to make people submissive.
      The most effective torture,well documented by Vietnam prisoners of war and studies in orphanages in the early 1900's, is not physical at all.  It is the torture that tells someone there is no hope. We are surrounded by that torture daily, and it's a lie.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Great point!

        Forcing someone into submissiveness and subsequently causing them to believe there is no hope for changing their particular situation (when in reality there is) is a tyranny of the mind.

    2. Healthy Pursuits profile image89
      Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have to ask myself why you would choose rape as your example of torture. Your "point" ended up having the not-so-slight odor of engaging in sexual fantasy. And a pretty weird sexual fantasy, at that.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lol.  Perhaps before replying, you should first of all not engage in some kind of weird interpretation that isn't defensible, and second of all read about how rape victims view their experience.  The rape doesn't have to be male on female either, that's just the most common example people think of when rape is mentioned.

        The fact you would even accuse me of this, which everyone can see is utterly pathetic, makes me wonder if you are a defender of torture, and are trying to attack "something" to avoid addressing my point.

        1. Healthy Pursuits profile image89
          Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I hope you read your "point" again, this time from a woman's point of view. Why would you use rape as an example? As for reading about rape victims, I don't have to. I worked with them as hotline assistance and spent a lot of time comforting them and being present for medical exams and police interviews. So I know more about rape than you probably ever will.

          Your response that I may be a defender of torture because I disagree with your example is as off-the-point as your example is. You started by talking about torture and ended by talking about rape. There are many types of torture that are practiced every day in the world, and it's extremely rare that threatening a man's wife with rape is one of them.  So my opinion remains that your "example" was questionable, to say the very least

          Oh, and by-the-way, I'm against torture. Aside from the fact that it's the act of a sociopath, any fool knows that most of the confessions one would get from torture are false.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My brother's girlfriend was raped.  She talked to us all about it and how vulnerable it made her feel.  She even went to the police while living at our house.  You are lucky I don't report you to the hubpages staff for the horrendous insult that I engage in "fantasies about rape."  I think the public being able to read your despicable words is enough to help people understand what kind of person would ever accuse another, on so scant evidence, that they have a "sexual fantasy" about rape.  But I digress.

            My example was raping the wife of a terrorist in front of him.  Defenders of torture will usually suggest that death or "maiming" are the only limits to what can and cannot be done in the name of torture.  There are people in our society who defend the heinous practice of torture!  This argument is about making them think about what actions they are willing to allow in society, and how their reasoning would not allow them to disavow raping a terrorist's wife in front of him, and therefore their argument should be given up and they should change to be against torture in all circumstances.

            It's a shame that your response was no better than an insult, and you somehow missed this obvious point.

            1. Healthy Pursuits profile image89
              Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I feel no need to defend my opinion. The simple fact that most terrorists are single men makes your "example" still very questionable.  As for reporting me, I chose to reply to you instead of reporting your despicable "example". That seemed the more adult option to me.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL.

  2. LauraD093 profile image84
    LauraD093posted 4 years ago

    Sooner28 as always food for thought...it has been consistently proven that torture(physically,mentally or in some domestic cases emotionally rendered, "bears little fruit," a person will say anything to make it stop as was stated by the previous posts-it is "tyranny of the mind" (stated I at might add simply and beautifully by you.) Physical scars may heal but the damage to the mind is with many for life. Our political history is littered unfortunately with the blood many. What has it in the end game accomplished? A great example given by tirelesstraveler (I have to visit their hubs) is what took place during Vietnam- we as a society are still feeling the effects of that meaningless "democratic" endeavor. The ideal of if someone picks up a stick and strikes you in the head -you in turn pick up a bigger stick and strike them back goes back to the time when humans squatted in caves. The need to find that bigger stick will  I believe (when in a pessimistic mood) will end all humanity.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The sticks are becoming ever more dangerous as time goes on.

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Uncrossable lines are ethics and Conservative. Crossable lines are morality and progressive, where anything goes if a justification can be found. This last is the pillar of modern progressive culture.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah cause MSNBC trumped torture as cool, and Fox News condemned it...

    2. JayDeck profile image71
      JayDeckposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd be interested to see if you could provide evidence of some progressive thinkers supporting torture.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's what I was confused about.  It was most congressional Republicans (aside from John McCain and a handful of others) who were defending torture, not liberals. 

        It was also Hannity and O'Reilly who continued to insist that "enhanced interrogation" was needed, while no MSNBC commentators (at least to my knowledge) ever said it was needed or a good idea.   That doesn't even include former Bush advisers and lawyers!

  4. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    I believe there are a number of lines that should not be crossed unfortunately when there is a need we seem to want to justify that which we know is wrong.

    There was a movie I was watching where a stranger approached a person's house noticing that the door was unlocked and slightly opened this person entered into the house once they got to the kitchen the resident was sitting at the table the stranger then said "I saw your door was open." And the resident replied "So that made it okay." (I took it to mean come into my house).

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That could definitely be a small scale example. 

      I would probably never do such a thing, unless it was a friend I knew and they had invited me over.

      An interesting scenario is what if you were going to visit your friend, and she didn't leave her door open on a regular basis, and you came home to find her door wide open?  Would it be right to investigate why, or would that action be a violation of privacy?

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sooner28,

        There is one thing you said which changes the dynamics of this scenario-you said Friend!

        Let's look at this again this time we find a vehicle parked at the curb and the door though not completely open is unlocked. Do we get into this person's car?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about a stranger. My apologies.

          If I were running from a mass murderer who was chasing me, and I knew this vehicle could help me escape, I would be tempted to jump in and get away, or at least jump in, lock all the doors, and call 911 to protect myself.

 
working