Talk:Debate:Define torture

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Sysop! Dude, Jpatt, please don't put these in the article namespace. Myk 03:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely Amazing!

Liberal appeasers at the drop of a hat will give non-citizens, terrorists at that, FULL Constitutional rights that were only won by the very military that they loathe, while they will just as quickly deny Christians their rights simply out of pure bigotry...uninformed bigotry at that!

Unkle Buck!

Citations? Oh, and please sign your posts (with three or four tildes) Wikinterpreter

Hey, just got to say ... as an atheist and way-left liberal, I still agree that liberals are often just as close-minded and contradictory about their supposed views (which I think are for the most part hypocritical and insincere) as you say. I also think this is true of most conservatives. But I don't hear people admitting that the people they disagree with have a point very much, so there you go. The supposedly objective liberal media (too conservative in my view) is totally unobjective, patronizing to Christians and conservatives, namby-pamby in so many ways, and deeply flawed. I'd way rather have a totally secular socialist state with open gay and transgender marriage and legal (but very, very rare) abortion and a low cap on personal wealth and capitalism in general, sure--I mean, you guys can just string me up right now--but that doesn't change the fact that many of your criticisms about liberals are totally true and deserved. I wish more people would engage in dialogue and admit their own shortcomings instead of building higher fences all the time; we could learn a lot from each other, and probably get somewhere that way. Of course I think this about you, too, but since I'm talking about liberals here, I know darn well that so many liberals are simply reactionary, running to any non-conservative viewpoint they can, without giving it much thought, simply out of a sense of clannishness. For what it's worth. Tcwing 17:35, 7 April 2009 (EDT)Tcwing

How Would Jesus Do It?

I’ve been following this discussion with interest and on this, the holiest day of the Christian Calendar, I feel inspired to comment. What’s being overlooked in all this is the question that should be paramount in a Christian’s mind.

How would Jesus do it?

It’s a confusing issue because, as Jpatt has observed, along with blurring the true meaning of “Christmas,” liberals have blurred the true meaning of “torture.” They’ve been doing it for some thirty years, most notably when that namby-pamby liberal bleeding heart, Alexander Solzhentysn, wrote some tired old rant (that isn’t online and so doesn’t really matter anymore. The Gulag-something, I think it was called) that included an entire chapter that included as “torture” – get this! – making people stay awake for long periods of time, putting them in solitary confinement, making them sit on the edges of hard chairs in the same position for a few hours, taking their clothes off, locking them nude in dark pits in a few feet of water and using dirty words during an interrogation.

I don’t know about you, but I can just hear Jesus laughing his head off at the very idea that keeping some prisoner awake for over eighteen hours hogtied and naked and rolling in his own waste qualifies as “torture.” He’d also probably get a chuckle at the idea that torture could take place under tropical skies while being fed three times a day. (All that bad press Castro has been getting about his prisons is just so unfair. Sure, maybe Castro’s regime occasionally starves prisoners for a day or two and sticks them in solitary, but as BenjaminS has pointed out that’s not really torture. AND it takes place in a country that’s a tropical vacation target spot for tourists all over the world! So why would anyone object to being incarcerated there?)

No doubt Jesus would agree with the premise that it’s not really torture unless it can kill you or do permanent damage. Like, say you have some prisoner who’s not talking. Raping him or her a few times isn’t torture, especially if the prisoner is middle aged or really old or something and not a virgin. I mean, it doesn’t kill them or anything, or do any permanent physical damage, (make sure the rapists wear condoms) so why not? Surely Jesus could agree with that.

Maybe you feel He’d object because of the biblical injunctions against fornication and sodomy? No problemo! Use an electrical prod. No fornication, and if it’s done right, she or he can live for years afterwards with no damage or scars, just the memory of the time they spent in American custody! Jesus would be proud.

Or better yet, if the prisoner has a kid, take it to another room and get it to scream while telling the prisoner you’re putting cigarettes out on the tyke’s back. (If its really young, you can probably get some pretty convincing shrieks by just PRETENDING to a toddler that you’re going to burn it with a lit match. No scars, no danger of death, so it’s not torture.) Or what the hey, strip the kid naked, slap it a few times, roll it around in the mud and once it’s completely freaked out, shaking with fear and cold and whimpering for mommy and daddy, bring it in for the prisoner to see and tell them both that if the prisoner doesn’t TALK you’re going to take it in the other room and do some even nastier things to it. That’ll not only make a big impression on the prisoner, but it might get the son or daughter to squeak out a few pleas to the parent to “not let the bad men hurt me anymore.” (If you’re squeamish about this for some reason, buy the brat an ice-cream cone afterwards or let it play a video game or something. The kid’ll get over it.)

So what we must keep in mind are the questions Jesus would ask about our treatment of prisoners. And after reading some of the arguments here, I have no doubt that Jesus, while testing a rubber hose against one palm and looking thoughtfully at the bare back of some handcuffed soul bent over a barrel, would ask Himself :

Does it leave physical scars?

Can it kill the prisoner?

In between periods of starvation, sleep deprivation, non-lethal beatings, being forced to stand on one foot for eight hours and the occasional sexual humiliation and faked execution, are the prisoners getting three squares a day?

What’s the weather like outside? Tropical or arctic? If the prisoner looks out of his or her window, are palm trees, white beaches, turquoise colored surf and cruise ships visible in the distance?

Are the interrogators American?

Do the interrogatees worship at a church, a synagogue, or a mosque?

All of this makes a big difference to the Prince of Peace. In fact, those are probably EXACTLY the questions He’ll ask on the day any interrogators, are brought before Him to account for their actions in this life!

Don’t you agree? --PF Fox 15:12, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but you cannot sit here and claim that Jesus wants us to torture people as long as we don't kill them. What we as Americans have to remember is that our nation began as a safe haven to the worlds unwanted. Many people left their homes to come here hoping for a better life, and we should extend this mentality to all the people of the world. Regardless of religion, ethnicity, or nationality. I sincerely hope that you can get that through your head. No where in the bible does it say that god only loves America. In fact the bible doesn't even mention America. So please Jesus would want you to treat everyone at the exact same standards that you would treat an American because Jesus does not hold an American flag. He doesn't have a great big foam hand saying USA is #1. Jesus loves everyone. Including you even after you make an ignorant comment like that. Rellik 01:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
That's my point. --PF Fox 11:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Right, wasn't it obvious that PF Fox was being ironic? What I don't understand, either, is how "conservative" can even be a viable category containing both "Christian" and "nationalist," when the United States didn't even exist (nor the modern notion of nationhood, for that matter) in Jesus' day. Not to mention, of course, that Christianity per se has no stand on nationhood, nor the United States on religion. But the proof is in the pudding; this category DOES exist, obviously. It just makes no sense to me. Tcwing 17:26, 7 April 2009 (EDT)Tcwing
Personal tools