Liz Cheyney says NIN, Pearl Jam et al opposition to music used as torture "pathetic"

[Nage Waza]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
You may find guilt vs. innocence really important, but I am not sure why you keep bringing it up with me, since I have no comments, good or bad, on the subject.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's quite the thing to say.

My guess is that you are alone on that one. The rest of us think that the difference between guilt and innocence is important.

You know what I meant, now you are trying to twist my words? I never said the difference was not important, I said I had no comments. Big difference, was it too complicated for you? To clear the air, I was trying to say that the subject of if the prisoners in Guantanamo are innocent or guilty, I know very little about that and had no comments (I have said this in assorted ways in this thread) and did not feel I had to explain in great detail over and over again.
In fact, the only point I had was I can support torture, not all of it, but I do support it. Even our local police force use assorted types of torture. Not all of it is chopping off fingers, some is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, threat of harm to families (ie. huge lawyer bills), etc. Can we all understand that now?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
You may find guilt vs. innocence really important, but I am not sure why you keep bringing it up with me, since I have no comments, good or bad, on the subject.



You know what I meant, now you are trying to twist my words? I never said the difference was not important, I said I had no comments. Big difference, was it too complicated for you? To clear the air, I was trying to say that the subject of if the prisoners in Guantanamo are innocent or guilty, I know very little about that and had no comments (I have said this in assorted ways in this thread) and did not feel I had to explain in great detail over and over again.
In fact, the only point I had was I can support torture, not all of it, but I do support it. Even our local police force use assorted types of torture. Not all of it is chopping off fingers, some is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, threat of harm to families (ie. huge lawyer bills), etc. Can we all understand that now?

I don't have to twist your words. You quoted 'em yourself. If that's not what you meant, it's not my fault. It is what you said.

As for the rest of it... You keep repeating yourself because you don't appear to understand that we get what you are saying but we just don't agree with it.

I don't want you to repeat yourself any more either.

Here's the thing: if you were defending the use of torture on guilty people in order to save innocent people, you'd actually have a leg to stand on.

What you are doing is defending the use of torture on both innocent and guilty people, to save innocent people. It doesn't make any sense.

Either you are looking out for innocent people, or you are not. You, apparently, are not. Unless maybe you can describe the innocent people who can be tortured and then describe the innocent ones who deserve protection from the evildoers.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here's the thing: if you were defending the use of torture on guilty people in order to save innocent people, you'd actually have a leg to stand on.

What you are doing is defending the use of torture on both innocent and guilty people, to save innocent people. It doesn't make any sense.

Yawn, this is getting boring. Did you just read the last couple of posts or something? I was very clear - torture is good to use if it can save innocent lives. If it saved innocent lives, how could the torture have been done to a person who was not guilty? It makes no sense. I am being very clear that I defend the use of torture for those that are guilty, read my posts and you will see I have said this. I am fairly sure innocent people have been tortured and I do not support that, but there have also been innocent people in Canada jailed yet I do not support the removal of all jails in Canada since some innocent people got locked up.

I think a few of you are confused with the music torture used in Guantanamo and my opinion which are not connected in any way shape or form.

[flip]

This made the Colbert Report last night. (the 29th)

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

What you have done is completely dishonest. I never even veered towards what you 'paraphrased' nor did I ever have a position beyond if torture can save lives, great. I have said nothing about Guantanamo's prisoners or anything else. Yet you keep shoving it down this thread. Somehow you think that if someone supports torture (not all of it mind you in my case - even though we never got that far) they support a whole grand list of items. This is simply not true. You have created and share in a stereotype that if anyone supports torture then they also have a whole litany of 'wrong ideas' to go with it. That is wrong and simply stupid.

You don't even realize it. Whatever you say in any thread will viewed in this light - that you have lied in your posts and wrongly quoted people for somewhat incorrect statements, and once brought up you simply ignore it.

Way to be an internet loser! You have also asked me to clear up things that YOU SAID...not what I said. How does that make any sense?

Ok... Here's the deal. You repeatedly discussed the real situations and consequences of war and torture. For example you mention many countries do it, George Bush USA, bombing Japan, calling people naive for not understanding what's actually going on in war, etc. You repeatedly put the conversation into real terms rather than hypothetical terms yet as soon as you get called out on any of its problems in the real world you hide behind the 'i'm only talking about my fantasy world' defence and cry foul.

I'm not lying, I'm not dishonest... Have a look at a couple of RogueUnderoo's replies to you for example. Clearly, I'm not the only one having trouble understanding what you're trying to say and/or not following your frequent jumps from fantasy land to the real world. Maybe... just maybe... its how you worded your post and tried to go about explaining yourself that's causing the confusion.

For example:

I think a few of you are confused with the music torture used in Guantanamo and my opinion which are not connected in any way shape or form.

And part of the problem is you posted in a thread about the real use of music torture and stated an opinion on it without sufficient qualifiers to adequately inform everybody that the opinion you were posting is not regarding what the thread was about and instead off topic and out of left field. This is even more of a problem when you have the first reply to the thread.


As for your ethreat of an ecloud hanging over my ehead whenever I post on a hockey message board... I'm not all that frightened.

Anyway... this has gone on long enough and its getting pretty pathetic. If you want to continue on your butt hurt rant, my PM box is always open. If you actually want to discuss the issues the thread is about, feel free to.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Did you just read the last couple of posts or something? I was very clear - torture is good to use if it can save innocent lives. If it saved innocent lives, how could the torture have been done to a person who was not guilty? It makes no sense.

Ok. In my hypothetical situation, there is someone I know, lets call him Jack, who is a terrorist but I don't know this. Jack's travelling somewhere to detonate a bomb; intelligence agencies know vague details but don't know specifically where or when. Team America: World Police bust down my door and demand to know everything I know about Jack and where he's headed. I don't want to talk to them because why should I turn against my friend, who as far as I know is innocent, and give him up to the horrible opressive force that's occupying my country and furthermore, those jerks just broke my door. They decide to waterboard me to find out what I know. I cough up the info and they're off to shoot Jack on sight and save the day.

Now here's the question for you: Would you support torture in that case?
Lets review what you've said on the subject:
If torture can save innocent lives, you support it. In that situation it could and did - so you support it.
You (apparently, if I'm reading things right) don't support torturing innocent people - so you don't support what happened to the narrator of my story.

To reiterate a direct quote from you: "If it saved innocent lives, how could the torture have been done to a person who was not guilty? It makes no sense." Well, I just provided an example where torture could save innocent lives but was done to an innocent person.



edit:

I am fairly sure innocent people have been tortured and I do not support that, but there have also been innocent people in Canada jailed yet I do not support the removal of all jails in Canada since some innocent people got locked up.

If you knew that 80% of people that were jailed in Canada were innocent, would your position on this change?

[onetwo_threefour]

The problem with ^ is that we don't actually know that they are torturing 100% of detainees at gitmo so it probably doesn't hurt his case really. I assume they only torture a small proportion of detainees that they think have info. But I could be wrong, and I still agree with you over Nage_Nazi, er I mean Waza. (just kidding, Godwin's law invoked intentionally and hyperbolically)

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

The problem with ^ is that we don't actually know that they are toetiring 100% of detainees at gitmo so it probably doesn't hurt his case really. I assume they only torture a small proportion of detainees that they think have info. But I could be wrong, and I still agree with you over Nage_Nazi, er I mean Waza. (just kidding, Godwin's law invoked intentionally and hyperbolically)

Just going by the Red Cross numbers, that's apparently the estimated percentage that were tortured and turned out to be the 'wrong guy'. Sure, its a possibly biased source, etc, etc but its the best estimate of such abuses that I've seen.


edit: Of course, then we get into the very messy situation of defining exactly what constitutes torture. According to some, detainees at Gitmo were routinely beaten and humiliated, refused a fair trial, kept in tiny concrete cells in solitary confinement in complete darkness for 23 hours a day (i.e. when they weren't being actively interrogated, etc), being forced to stay awake/standing for extended periods of time, etc etc. Do those kind of abuses cross the line into torture? A lot of people would say yes.