TORTURE!! Terrorist forced to listen to Eminem!!!

[TheDude]

9/11 DOES give us the right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit, even up to and including pre-emptive strikes on threatening countries. .

I'm all for defending oneself from a threat, but killing people as a byproduct that have nothing to do with the said threat is wrong. I don't buy that 'you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs' bit. You wouldn't either if it was your 'eggs' being broken.

I guess if somebody started beating up your wife in front of you, you'd say, "Well, that doesn't give me license to hurt him. Instead, I need to understand why he's having such a bad day. I need to try to compromise with him, show him that I mean him no harm. Maybe then he'll stop beating up my wife.".

No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.

I dunno, you and Raveneyes spend so much time defending them and trying to protect their rights; if the shoe fits, wear it..

Yes, thats EXACTLY what we do, we defend terrorist. Man you're good!

Personally, I don't think terrorists deserve even Geneva convention consideration. They are brutal maniacs who think that you and I deserve to die because we are Americans. They have murdered thousands of innocent people, and not in a "collateral" way, as you put it, but in a direct, intentional way. For that, they deserve to die..

Yes, I agree, people that disregardly kill innocent people should die.

Let me ask you something:

If a terrorist leader was captured and it was found that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get that information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.

I would wrench out his testicles with my bare hands to gain that factual information.

 

[MrWilson]

No, we have the luxury of carpet bombing and entire area, regardless of who else we kill besides the intended targets. We have a thing called 'allowable civilian loss' (or something of that sort) to justify the attack. Regardless of what Rumsfeld said, the smart bombs don't always hit perfectly and the intel isn't always correct.

first of all, we only carpet bomb strictly military targets, theres no more carpet bombing citys like back in the days of old (ww2)

theres one thing to accidentially kill a civi, but when they are the target, thats another.

 

[fossten]

I'm all for defending oneself from a threat, but killing people as a byproduct that have nothing to do with the said threat is wrong. I don't buy that 'you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs' bit. You wouldn't either if it was your 'eggs' being broken.

Baloney. You don't even understand your own analogy. You're not all for defending oneself from a threat, because you make up lousy excuses like "Oh, we can't attack them because we might accidentally kill somebody who's not fighting us!" BS. In Vietnam everybody was a suspected VC because they disguised themselves. Your tactic is to back off and chicken out because you are afraid to take a stand.

No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.

Again, you don't understand your own analogy. The 'kid' in your example that 'happened to be walking by' decides to start taunting your wife and threatens to join the fight, and you'd stand idly by? Pitiful.

I would wrench out his testicles with my bare hands to gain that factual information.

Why you torturing @#$%&*!

How can you live with yourself?

You are either for torture or against it. Make up your mind.

 

[TheDude]

Baloney. You don't even understand your own analogy. You're not all for defending oneself from a threat, because you make up lousy excuses like "Oh, we can't attack them because we might accidentally kill somebody who's not fighting us!" BS. In Vietnam everybody was a suspected VC because they disguised themselves. Your tactic is to back off and chicken out because you are afraid to take a stand..

Lol.. You're right, lets stick to the good all 'KILL EM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT' way... It works so well. I gotta ask, why aren't you over there fighting the good fight? It's easy to say war is justified when you don't have to see/do the killing or put yourself or loved ones in harms way. Denial is good for the conscience huh?

Again, you don't understand your own analogy. The 'kid' in your example that 'happened to be walking by' decides to start taunting your wife and threatens to join the fight, and you'd stand idly by? Pitiful...

Lol, whats pitiful is how you took my analogy and reworded it and imposed your own ideas on my actions. Pitiful attempt dude.

Why you torturing @#$%&*!

How can you live with yourself?

You are either for torture or against it. Make up your mind.

I was responding to your hypothetical scenario where a known terrorist had information on a known bomb about to kill people. There's a difference in punishing a known murderer to save lives than torturing someone because you think they might know something. But you don't see that difference.

 

[Calabrio]

I was responding to your hypothetical scenario where a known terrorist had information on a known bomb about to kill people. There's a difference in punishing a known murderer to save lives than torturing someone because you think they might know something. But you don't see that difference.

Let's rephrase it so it's more to your liking:

Let me ask you something:
If a terrorist leader was captured and it was suspected that he had some information that a terrorist atomic bomb was going to be detonated in your neighborhood while your wife/kids/parents were home asleep one night, what lengths would you go to to get any potential information out of him?

You're either going to answer this straight up or try to wiggle out of it. My guess is you wiggle.

 

[TheDude]

Let's rephrase it so it's more to your liking:

Well, I would evacuate the town and use sodium pentothal and or other tongue loosening drugs to try and gain that information. What I wouldn't do is beat the guy half to death to then realize that the bomb wasn't real.

Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)

The way I see it, you're both either going to answer straight up or try and wiggle out of it. Or possibly just dodge and not answer back.

 

[Calabrio]

Well, I would evacuate the town and use sodium pentothal and or other tongue loosening drugs to try and gain that information.

Actually using drugs isn't legal either. Nor is it always effective. And it certainly isn't fast.

And evacuating a town is slow and dangerous. How many people would die in the panic, traffic, and how many would be left behind. But, in the meantime, you coddle the terrorist.

Maybe you could give him a backrub, some hot co-co, and draw him a bath. Then he'll losen up, realize you aren't such a bad guy, and he'll tell you the truth.

What I wouldn't do is beat the guy half to death to then realize that the bomb wasn't real.

Yeah, why take that chance? You're only talking about the lives of your family, and other innocent people, why risk a guilty conscience.

Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)

I'll field it though.

First of all, you're implying that random peasant farmers are taken and tortured. You premise is wrong. We're talking about known Al-queda operatives, not some guy in town who might know something.

You're also operating under the mistaken impression that "torture" necessarily means cruel and phsyical means of abuse. According to the human rights groups playing Eminem and making someone sit in a cold room also constitutes torture.

And you also imply that he's "innocent" and not a terrorist who wishes to blow up innocent women and children standing in line to get a slice of pizza or riding a bus. If that terrorist had the opportunity, he'd lunge at you and kill you. Remember the CIA Mike Span during the Afghan War, he was attacked by these scum and they literal beat and bit him to death.

But, with that said, I would be completely comfortable with myself if I beat the crap out of a terrorist, even if he the threat turned out to be a bluff.

The way I see it, you're both either going to answer straight up or try and wiggle out of it. Or possibly just dodge and not answer back.

I doubt he'll do this. I know I didn't.

 

[TheDude]

Actually, that's legal either. Nor is it always effective. And it certainly isn't fast.


Yeah, why take that chance?


I'll field it though.

First of all, you're implying that random peasant farmers are taken and tortured. You premise is wrong. We're talking about known Al-queda operatives, not some guy in town who might know something.

You're also operating under the mistaken impression that "torture" necessarily means cruel and phsyical means of abuse. According to the human rights groups playing Eminem and making someone sit in a cold room also constitutes torture.

And you also imply that he's "innocent" and not a terrorist who wishes to blow up innocent women and children standing in line to get a slice of pizza or riding a bus.

But, with that said, I would be completely comfortable with myself if I beat the crap out of a terrorist, even if he the threat turned out to be a bluff.



I doubt he'll do this. I know I didn't.

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.... I asked you too answer a hypothetical scenario like Fossten asked me to answer and then you asked me to answer. I answered both of your questions straight to the point. I didn't 'field' it like you did. You're under the impression that only and just only terrorist are taken into custody. That is foolish to assume, I guess in America not a single innocent person has ever been falsely accused of a crime huh?

So, are you going to answer?

"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

 

[Calabrio]

So, are you going to answer?

I thought I answered that pretty clearly.

No. I wouldn't feel bad about it.

No wiggling there.

 

[TheDude]

I thought I answered that pretty clearly.

No. I wouldn't feel bad about it.

No wiggling there.

No, you said you wouldn't feel bad about beating a known terrorist, that is not what I asked. So, the wiggleling is there...

Either answer straight up or just say you won't answer, no games. I didn't wiggle as Fossten presumed I would. (Fossten, I gladly await your reply also)

(Repeat 3)
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

 

[fossten]

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.... I asked you too answer a hypothetical scenario like Fossten asked me to answer and then you asked me to answer. I answered both of your questions straight to the point. I didn't 'field' it like you did. You're under the impression that only and just only terrorist are taken into custody. That is foolish to assume, I guess in America not a single innocent person has ever been falsely accused of a crime huh?

It's foolish of you to assume that he's under that impression, since all Calabrio did was point out your faulty premise. His statement in no way indicates that he's under such a silly impression which, by the way, came from you.

So, are you going to answer?

"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ? (This is for you too Fossten)"

I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

BTW, Calabrio's right: Sodium Pentathol and other truth drugs are considered torture, so you're still admitting the necessity of so-called torture.

Come on, dude, we stand with open arms to receive you. Admit the truth and join the proud defenders of our country! Be a real patriot.

 

[TheDude]

It's foolish of you to assume that he's under that impression, since all Calabrio did was point out your faulty premise. His statement in no way indicates that he's under such a silly impression which, by the way, came from you.


I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

BTW, Calabrio's right: Sodium Pentathol and other truth drugs are considered torture, so you're still admitting the necessity of so-called torture.

Come on, dude, we stand with open arms to receive you. Admit the truth and join the proud defenders of our country! Be a real patriot.

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.. Cheap and lousy tactics, you asked me to answer straight up to the point and I did. I didn't interject my ideas into your hypothetical scenario nor did I in Calabrio's revision on it. So just say you don't want to answer and stop playing games, it gets old. (or answer)

By the way, in your 'sweating' and other human non torture tactics the bomb would detonate and kill the entire town before this non peasant terrorist broke down, unless your scenario calls for a bomb with a week or more timer? (lol). So in retrospect, both of our solutions would of failed to save lives. Except in my idea, the town would of been evacuated and possible no or the minimal lives would of been lost.

 

[fossten]

Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.. Cheap and lousy tactics, you asked me to answer straight up to the point and I did. I didn't interject my ideas into your hypothetical scenario nor did I in Calabrio's revision on it.

Actually, you did too revise and interject into it.

No, I'd kick the $%% out of anyone beating up my wife, what I wouldn't do is punch the kid that happend to be walking by during the fight because he happened to be there.

By the way, in your 'sweating' and other human non torture tactics the bomb would detonate and kill the entire town before this non peasant terrorist broke down, unless your scenario calls for a bomb with a week or more timer? (lol). So in retrospect, both of our solutions would of failed to save lives. Except in my idea, the town would of been evacuated and possible no or the minimal lives would of been lost.

Your story is getting more bizarre as you make it up. What a fantastic tale you're weaving. Interesting how the story grows as you try to wiggle out of it. One problem though: You just contradicted yourself, because in your scenario the peasant was making up the story about the bomb (it wasn't real). So how could it have detonated, either then or a week later? You're the one that said the bomb was an empty scare.

 

[TheDude]

Actually, you did too revise and interject into it..

Dude, just say you don't want to give me a straight answer to a hypothetical question like I gave you, it's that easy. And the 'kid punching part' had nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario you dared me to answer straight up, it was an entirely different question.

Your story is getting more bizarre as you make it up. What a fantastic tale you're weaving. Interesting how the story grows as you try to wiggle out of it. One problem though: You just contradicted yourself, because in your scenario the peasant was making up the story about the bomb (it wasn't real). So how could it have detonated, either then or a week later? You're the one that said the bomb was an empty scare.

Go back and read, I never changed my question to you, it's there for all to see so saying I did won't make it happen. The peasant wasn't lying about the bomb, I never said he was. My point to reiterate yet again, how would you justify your actions when you tortured (or disoriented like you say) an innocent man? I'm sure you will say he couldn't be innocent because innocent people are never falsely accused, or something similar.

So, I will ask it one more time, not that you'll give me a straight answer, but...

(for the 4th time)
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

 

[fossten]

I already gave you my answer. Just because you can't understand it or mischaracterized it doesn't matter to me.

I've never tortured anybody, so I can't honestly tell you how I'd feel. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't regret for very long physically sweating a 'peasant' who lied about a bomb in order to scare everybody. That guy would deserve the beating he got. Furthermore, your silly little peasant example implies that he's some kind of average joe, which also implies that he would cave the instant he saw a beating coming, which would then not necessitate said beating.

I definitely would not go chickensh!t like you and back off from any future possible interrogations just because one guy didn't know the answers.

See the bold part? That's the answer part to your questions. I even made it really big so you could see it this time.

You're just mad because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, so you're accusing me of wiggling, despite the clarity of my response.

But since you're going to accuse me of it no matter what, here's some additional cud for you to chew on:

Your scenario assumed that I had already been torturing somebody for days, which is a premise that isn't likely or even acceptable to me. You attempted to pigeonhole me in some straw man position without my consent, and only accused me of wiggling when I refused to be pigeonholed. A very poor and lousy tactic, and extremely transparent.

My scenario to you, on the other hand, involved the hypothetical actions of OTHER PEOPLE and asked WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN RESPONSE, leaving you open to choose your own actions, a situation you were unwilling to allow me to be in.

Deal with that. I'm done with this.

For the final time.

 

[Calabrio]

The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this.

No.
And to further make my point, shoot him afterwards and feed him to the pigs.

 

[TheDude]

I already gave you my answer. Just because you can't understand it or mischaracterized it doesn't matter to me.



See the bold part? That's the answer part to your questions. I even made it really big so you could see it this time.

You're just mad because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, so you're accusing me of wiggling, despite the clarity of my response.

But since you're going to accuse me of it no matter what, here's some additional cud for you to chew on:

Your scenario assumed that I had already been torturing somebody for days, which is a premise that isn't likely or even acceptable to me. You attempted to pigeonhole me in some straw man position without my consent, and only accused me of wiggling when I refused to be pigeonholed. A very poor and lousy tactic, and extremely transparent.

My scenario to you, on the other hand, involved the hypothetical actions of OTHER PEOPLE and asked WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN RESPONSE, leaving you open to choose your own actions, a situation you were unwilling to allow me to be in.

Deal with that. I'm done with this.

For the final time.

No, you gave me an answer to a question you changed. All you did was answer your own question, not mine. Don't ask me to answer your questions when you are unwilling to answer mine. That is a cowardly action.

 

[TheDude]

The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this.

No.
And to further make my point, shoot him afterwards and feed him to the pigs.

If your scenario is the same as my scenario to you, then I really do not know what to say. Here, I'll copy and paste my scenario for the 5th time that way you can compare word for word, action for action and hopefully see the difference, like Fossten you answered your own question, not mine.

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

What you said:
"The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this."

Do you see the difference?

 

[Calabrio]

If your scenario is the same as my scenario to you, then I really do not know what to say.

You're scenario isn't realistic.
Why don't I pose a hypothetic of pigs flying out your ass and taking over the world later on in the thread.

Here, I'll copy and paste my scenario for the 5th time that way you can compare word for word, action for action and hopefully see the difference, like Fossten you answered your own question, not mine.

That's because your question doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about. It's a hypothetical along the lines of "If you're driving across a one lane bridge and see a baby sitting in the middle of the road, do you hit the baby or drive off the bridge."

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

What you said:
"The scenerio was as stated: Terrorist leader has been captured and he is believed to have information regarding another attack. You torture him for information that he does not have. Do you feel bad about this."

Do you see the difference?

And apparently you don't see the evolution through the thread. It doesn't matter though.

You're scenario isn't realistic. Why would anyone take a peasant and expect him to have information. He would have to have aligned himself with terrorist factions inorder to be suspected. And if that's the case, I have no problem beating the crap out of him if it were to save my family or my country, or even you.

Would I feel bad if a person were picked up at random and beaten for no reason. Well, I guess. That'd be a pretty mindless thing to do. And it'd be a waste of time when there was a real terrorist out there who needed the crap beat out of him. But that's a pretty stupid scenario, and one that isn't based on any kind of real situation.

As I've stated repeatedly, you're state a false scenario, attempting to get a response that may sound good to you, but has nothing to do with the actual topic. You're just frustrated because no one is dumb enough not recognize it.

 

[TheDude]

You're scenario isn't realistic.
Why don't I pose a hypothetic of pigs flying out your ass and taking over the world later on in the thread.


That's because your question doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about. It's a hypothetical along the lines of "If you're driving across a one lane bridge and see a baby sitting in the middle of the road, do you hit the baby or drive off the bridge."



And apparently you don't see the evolution through the thread. It doesn't matter though.

You're scenario isn't realistic. Why would anyone take a peasant and expect him to have information. He would have to have aligned himself with terrorist factions inorder to be suspected. And if that's the case, I have no problem beating the crap out of him if it were to save my family or my country, or even you.

Would I feel bad if a person were picked up at random and beaten for no reason. Well, I guess. That'd be a pretty mindless thing to do. And it'd be a waste of time when there was a real terrorist out there who needed the crap beat out of him. But that's a pretty stupid scenario, and one that isn't based on any kind of real situation.

As I've stated repeatedly, you're state a false scenario, attempting to get a response that may sound good to you, but has nothing to do with the actual topic. You're just frustrated because no one is dumb enough not recognize it.

You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

 

[Calabrio]

You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

No, you're debating skills are what is sad and pitiful.
When debating issues of policy, you don't discuss the exception to the rule.

Again, why would someone just grab a random goat herder off the street and invest that much time into obtaining information from him when there is a limited amount of time, and if there were no reason to suspect them.

If you were trying to argue that an innocent person might be detained and questioned, you would be advancing a plausible situation. And when he's determined to have been of no value, he'd be released.

But putting all your faith in an person who has no association with terrorist at a time of such risk is stupid. Why would some unaffiliated guy know the secret terrorist plans? YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED. That's why I corrected it on the first page.

And to further elaborate. IF THERE WAS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT "so-called" INNOCENT GUY KNEW, I would not regret it at all.

How many ways would you like us to answer your unrealistic scenario? We've covered the realistic bases, and your fanciful ones too now.

 

[TheDude]

No, you're debating skills are what is sad and pitiful.
When debating issues of policy, you don't discuss the exception to the rule.

Again, why would someone just grab a random goat herder off the street and invest that much time into obtaining information from him when there is a limited amount of time, and if there were no reason to suspect them.

If you were trying to argue that an innocent person might be detained and questioned, you would be advancing a plausible situation. And when he's determined to have been of no value, he'd be released.

But putting all your faith in an person who has no association with terrorist at a time of such risk is stupid. Why would some unaffiliated guy know the secret terrorist plans? YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED. That's why I corrected it on the first page.

And to further elaborate. IF THERE WAS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT "so-called" INNOCENT GUY KNEW, I would not regret it at all.

How many ways would you like us to answer your unrealistic scenario? We've covered the realistic bases, and your fanciful ones too now.

Wow, I hope you feel better about yourself now after insulting me, I really don't mind, insults never bothered me. All you did was twist and turn until the thread went into the dumper, not the first time this has happened, oh well.

 

[RB3]

What I said:
"Let me ask you a question now, how would you feel if you tortured and broke a guy for days because you suspected he new something about a possible bomb to only find out that he was just some peasant that had no ties to any terrorist group and that bomb was just an empty scare? How would you justify your actions ?"

I am going to regret getting involved in this, but....

The justification for your actions, in your scenario, is EXACTLY the same as the opposite of your scenario...that he DID have knowledge and there WAS a bomb.

Justification is either present or it isn't. Justification cannot change based on the outcome, because you CANNOT KNOW, until you interrogate, whether there is a bomb and if your subject know's where it is. Your scenario presumes reasonable suspicion, without it there'd be no interrogation.

I presume, with your question, you are attempting to justify never allowing interrogation based on the fact you might sometime interrogate someone who didn't have information. In that scenario, we might just as well go ahead and surrender.

Oh wait, that's the Democrat plan.

 

[fossten]

You're right my scenario isn't realistic, NEVER in the history of the planet has an innocent man been falsely accused. It would be rediculous to assume that a non terrorist would be suspect of having ties to a terrorist group and be detainted and interrogated to see if these claims are true. (Sarcasm to clarify)

I am not frustrated, your actions are just sad and pitiful.

Sarcasm isn't just your best tactic, it's your sole recourse when you've been backed into a corner. That and denial. ("I AM NOT FRUSTRATED")

Face it: throughout this thread we've all answered your questions. You're mad because we elaborated on them and you couldn't archetype us with your pitiful straw man example which, as Calabrio so effectively points out, is completely unrealistic, considering neither one of us would ever be in the situation you've described.

You (OR ANY OF US), however, could be in the situation I described, and you don't have a good answer for that situation other than that torture in certain circumstances, while unpleasant and undesired, would be NECESSARY.

What this thread has done is devolve into a petty pissing match with you doing most of the spraying. If you don't like the direction it's going, try debating on a logical, reasonable level and cut the sophistry and sarcasm. Nobody's doing this but you.

 

[TheDude]

Sarcasm isn't just your best tactic, it's your sole recourse when you've been backed into a corner. That and denial. ("I AM NOT FRUSTRATED")

Face it: throughout this thread we've all answered your questions. You're mad because we elaborated on them and you couldn't archetype us with your pitiful straw man example which, as Calabrio so effectively points out, is completely unrealistic, considering neither one of us would ever be in the situation you've described.

You (OR ANY OF US), however, could be in the situation I described, and you don't have a good answer for that situation other than that torture in certain circumstances, while unpleasant and undesired, would be NECESSARY.

What this thread has done is devolve into a petty pissing match with you doing most of the spraying. If you don't like the direction it's going, try debating on a logical, reasonable level and cut the sophistry and sarcasm. Nobody's doing this but you.

Sure, if it makes you feel better. You say I am upset because you elaborated on my question before answering it, so all you really did was answer your own question. If I had done the same and elaborated on yours, you would of called me on it and attacked. Would you of not?

And sarcasm is all I really have when dealing with people blind to their own hypocrisy.