Cheeze_Pavilion said:
There's a difference between seeing some infringement as legitimate, and not protecting something. Infringement is...INFRINGEMENT! Allowing some to be taken away. Not protecting something is allowing ALL of it to be taken away.
Hey look, more words that Cheeze_Pavilion has unique definitions of that nobody else goes by. If one is protecting a person's right, one would assume that that person's right would not be infringed. Stop making up new definitions to try to retroactively make your arguments make sense. Nobody's buying it except people who want you to be right so desperately that they're willing to completely ignore your egregious errors of logic.
If you've got a better source, share it.
I'm not the one making a positive assertion. It's on you to provide good evidence that waterboarding scars people for life. You're the one asking us to put innocent lives at risk due to the unproven possibility that maybe some really evil people are having long-term psychological damage.
1) I see you're moving the goalposts from "long-term psychological damage" to "traumatized"
I consider those two things to be the same thing, actually.
2) A "couple of people" have NOT suffered "long-term psychological damage" from gang bang ass rape. Therefore, according to your logic, gang bang ass rape STILL continues to not be torture according to you.
You really do have some pretty serious logical disconnects. I stated that waterboarding doesn't cause long-term psychological damage to
the overwhelming majority of people who experience it, i.e. the entire United States Armed Forces. Not "if one person doesn't experience trauma, it's OK." In fact, I said the exact opposite: "if MOST people DO experience trauma, it's NOT OK." Somehow you managed to take what I said, hear the exact opposite, and then conclude that I was wrong. Therefore, if you think that the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said was wrong, then you must think I'm right.
Notice what is missing? Pain. Your definition of torture leaves open the infliction of any amount of pain as long as none of those four lines are crossed. If we could tap into the nerves and cause direct pain, that would not be torture under your definition.
I would feel massive pain at being imprisoned, as I have a fear of confinement. Does that mean that imprisoning me counts as torture and that therefore I should not be allowed to be imprisoned?
Pain is fleeting. It's there and then it's gone. If inflicting momentary pain on an evil man saves the life of a good man, then it's OK by me.
No it isn't. If I'm a Christian of a certain belief, it's in my best interest to die sinless and celibate as a martyr. The clear purpose is to do God's will. There is a Christian perspective at odds with the natural perspective.
Except you're basing your position in an incredible leap of faith. I'm basing my position on millions of years of evidence.
According to that logic, it's acceptable for me to steal from a rich man to give to two or more poor men.
Not at all. That would set a precedent that theft was acceptable, and would ultimately hurt everyone severely. You can't just look at the immediate consequences of an action, you have to look at the long-term consequences.
It also makes every guilty party an outlaw: it means I can do everything from rob to rape to enslave to murder any guilty party from terrorist to shoplifter.
Ideally, such a situation would cause nobody to want to be a guilty party. Additionally, doing undue harm to a guilty party harms innocent parties who are associated with the guilty party, so if you enslave a shoplifter, his friends are going to be harmed rather severely with emotional distress, and therefore that action is unacceptable.
So basically, under your laws, the only rights I have are to keep living and reproduce.
--I have no right of free expression: my words might hurt more people than they help
You have no right to free expression as it stands. Hate speech is outlawed. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We've already banned forms of speech that clearly hurt more people than they help. There would be almost no alteration from the current system.
--I have no right of religious freedom: if everyone would have a better chance at living and reproducing should I follow a different religion, I must follow it.
Nonsense. If someone tried to force you to follow a specific religion, you would become resentful and discontent, which would harm society. Again, the current philosophy of free religion already follows my maxim. There would be almost no change.
--I have no right of property: I should not keep anything for my one person that could benefit two others
False. Society needs to feel that hard work is rewarded in order to function smoothly. It is imperative that everyone be allowed to keep what they earn. The only change from the current system would be that you'd have
more of a right to your own property than you do now, thanks to the existence of entitlement programs like Social Security and Welfare being altered to use individual accounts or eliminated.
--I have no right of liberty: if I choose to spend my time doing something where if I had spent my time doing something else I would have saved a life, I've done the same thing as if I had gone over and killed that person myself.
Only if that action saved the most possible lives. If we don't have people doing the mundane jobs of the world, the world would collapse and billions would die. If you don't spend some time relaxing after working, you'll become stressed and inefficient. If everyone becomes stressed, it will cause massive civil unrest.
You seem to be incapable of looking past the immediate consequences of an action. Until you can, you are incapable of understanding my philosophy.
