Senator Lindsey Graham Debates Himself On Torture - Page 3

Jermyn Davidson · #21 05-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Most people on welfare ARE NOT just looking for a hand out.

Most Democrats ARE NOT for just giving out money to lazy folks.

Most Republicans ARE NOT for just giving out money to corporations without some sort of reliable accountablility measures.

How did this thread morph to this when we were discussing Senator Graham contradicting himself?

SOUNWORTHY · #22 05-28-2009, 04:02 PM

I don't think I said MOST but there are too many. Maybe not in New Jersey but I'm from California where some of these people have been on welfare for more than one generation. I've seen them pick up their food stamps in their Cadillac Esclades and Jags. Very strange. Then there are those who deserve help and get off as soon as possible.

EVAunit01 · #23 05-31-2009, 09:02 AM

Getting back to the original post, I would like to know what advocates of torture say about moral relativism. It is very strange when Christians, who are notorious for their belief in an unchanging moral code, argue for the use of torture simply because it may be useful.

The actual effectiveness of torture is another topic. For now, I would just like some responses on why torture is justified but other forms of moral relativism are not.

SOUNWORTHY · #24 05-31-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVAunit01

Getting back to the original post, I would like to know what advocates of torture say about moral relativism. It is very strange when Christians, who are notorious for their belief in an unchanging moral code, argue for the use of torture simply because it may be useful.

The actual effectiveness of torture is another topic. For now, I would just like some responses on why torture is justified but other forms of moral relativism are not.

EVAunit01 · #25 06-01-2009, 09:06 AM

Can you answer my question?

SOUNWORTHY · #26 06-01-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVAunit01

Can you answer my question?

What question?

EVAunit01 · #27 06-01-2009, 11:06 AM

Many Christians claim that morality is unchanging, and I agree with them on this point. Christians are generally the biggest critics of moral relativism. Now the Bible talks a lot about the use of force against others. If I am a Christian I may not go torture someone purely for my own sadistic pleasure. But according to some, I may torture a person if he is a terrorist or even suspected of being a terrorist. Don't you see the contradiction?

You can not say that morality is absolute and unchanging and then change morality to suit your wishes.

Since I was apparently unclear in my previous posts, my question is this: How do you explain the contradiction in the views that I mentioned above?

Jermyn Davidson · #28 06-01-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVAunit01

Can you answer my question?

My answer to this is simple.

Read Ec. 3

We're not talking about moral relativism here.

EVAunit01 · #29 06-02-2009, 10:54 AM

Read my reply at the very bottom of page 1.

That chapter has nothing to do with legitimizing torture. Only when taken grossly out of context can it be used to support a pro-torture viewpoint. If we took that same interpretation of Ecclesiastes 3 would would have to say that there is a time for murder, rape and blasphemy.

Are all these things legitimate because the Ecclesiastes 3 says there is a time for all things? If torture is different, then how and why is it different?

SOUNWORTHY · #30 06-02-2009, 12:40 PM

Think of how many innocent lives may have been saved because of the methods used. Ask some of the 3,000 plus at 9-11 if it would have been worth it to save their lives. If it works I say Go for it. This is war of the worst kind. Drastic measures have been used as long as there has been wars.