Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You can call me far right if you wish, but that doesn't change the facts. I honestly do not understand why someone who lives outside the law, should then be protected by the law; please enlighten me as to the logic surrounding this. I feel that torture should only be used for terrorists, murders and rapists and only when they refuse to give information.
    Refuse to give information? lmao. Is this before they have been found guilty or in the collecting evidence stage?

    So shall we start torturing those found guilty of murder, terrorism and rape in the UK then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You can call me far right if you wish, but that doesn't change the facts. I honestly do not understand why someone who lives outside the law, should then be protected by the law; please enlighten me as to the logic surrounding this. I feel that torture should only be used for terrorists, murders and rapists and only when they refuse to give information.
    Because the law is not something that is prejudiced. It treats people the same and it is by that standard that we can all rely on it. Once you start having special laws for this group and special laws for that group I'm afraid the very thing that makes the legal system as it has developed in the United Kingdom rather circumspect. Your idea is shocking and frankly disgusting.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You can call me far right if you wish, but that doesn't change the facts. I honestly do not understand why someone who lives outside the law, should then be protected by the law; please enlighten me as to the logic surrounding this. I feel that torture should only be used for terrorists, murders and rapists and only when they refuse to give information.
    You can't live outside tha Law, as that implys you are not constrained by it which, if you are in a position to be extradited, you have been.

    Do you therefore think that if a muderer were to kill another murderer, the first should not be prosecuted as the second does not qualify, under your logic, for protection under law? Thus the muderer who did the killing would have broken no law, as one would not exist pertaining to the killed murderer....

    Have you ever littered? In which case you don't deserve protection of law and I should be able to come and assault you. Before you say it's a silly parallel it's not, if you're going to apply a principle to Law you cannot pick and choose where it does, does not apply.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    Refuse to give information? lmao. Is this before they have been found guilty or in the collecting evidence stage?

    So shall we start torturing those found guilty of murder, terrorism and rape in the UK then?
    Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I don't feel that someone should receive a punishment of torture, but torture should only be used for serious crimes in collecting evidence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I don't feel that someone should receive a punishment of torture, but torture should only be used for serious crimes in collecting evidence.
    But what if they're innocent and have no evidence to give? Just torture them to death and then shrug your shoulders?

    Atleast if you found them guilty first I could sort of understand how some far-right minded person may support torture.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    I agree that the state should not torture individuals. However, we should not be stopped from deporting a terrorist because of fears that he will be tortured. If the terrorist is tortured, then it is only because of what he has done and it is not our problem, if he is not safe when he returns home. I object to the fact that we must keep him in the UK at the expense of the Taxpayer; those who he were going to murder. I see no logic in that at all.
    I think that you're adopting an incoherent position here. You're saying that it's morally wrong for the State to torture individuals (I take this premise from your words: "the state should not [i.e. ought not to] torture individuals" ). But you're saying that the State should then hand over this individual to another State that will torture them. There is no morally relevant difference there - you're still using the State as a tool through which the individual is tortured - it makes the State complicit in torture. If the British State sent Jews to be gassed in Nazi camps, I'd blame the British State as readily as I blame the Nazi State. You're either saying that torture is morally neutral in light of his actions or you adopt the position that torture is morally wrong regardless of his actions. Your reasoning here in support of allowing other States to torture individuals (but not the British - as if distance somehow makes torture more moral) does not by-pass any argument which states the moral foundational intuition that torture is immoral and wrong. You're just using logical trickery here, distracting people from the main debate. If it's not okay for the British State to torture individuals, then it's not okay for the British State to send individuals away to be tortured, unless you make a stronger argument in favour of that view (rather than merely assuming it).

    People are not granted rights at all; from birth every citizens has the same rights.
    This is just a semantic issue, but people must be granted rights - how else are they acquired? Even natural rights are granted, and the fact that every citizen has those same rights from birth doesn't really contradict that sentence. So this is a meaningless and irrelevant opening gambit. There may be reasons post-Hobbes for why people ought to automatically be granted rights qua moral agent. Yet rights are nevertheless human constructs, albeit with a heck of a lot of academic/intellectual backing via things such as the social contract.

    However, if someone wishes to live the life of an outlaw (living outside of the law) then the law shouldn't then protect him. I am not suggesting that we should encourage torture, but it is not our problem if this person is tortured when he returns to Pakistan. He committed the crime and he will be punished to the full extent of the law, and in Pakistan that is torture. Quite frankly, I find it insulting that he expects the law to protect him but he won't follow the law. I also find it insulting that he was prepared to blow up innocent people, but these innocent people are now bailing him out.
    You've merely asserted this opinion again - there's nothing new to discuss here. This is a theory of rights which I don't accept. Indeed, it's a pretty flawed conception of rights. Thought experiment?

    Imagine person A steals three sweets from a shop. He's broken the law. He therefore, under your view, loses his rights - he is living as an 'outlaw' in that instance. He allegedly does not respect the law.

    1. If some person is living as an outlaw then they lose any protection given by the law with respect to their rights.

    2. Person A is living as an outlaw by breaking thievery laws.

    3. Therefore, Person A loses any protection given by the law with respect to their rights.

    It follows that anybody can infringe upon person A's rights. Person A could be tortured. It follows that you're permitted to torture people purely because they're stealing sweets. I find that conclusion trivially absurd. Therefore your conception of rights is flawed. More specifically, your conception of rights does not take seriously the concept of proportionality which I believe to be important in justice.

    It's also "our problem" if the British State, which is against torture, helps a person to be tortured. There's no morally relevant difference between deporting somebody to be tortured and carrying out the deed on British soil. There may be a legally relevant difference, but that isn't what we're discussing.

    And don't be so sensational. These "innocent people" are not bailing him out. They're solely carrying out their moral negative duty to not torture anyone. This doesn't mean that the criminal can't be dealt with in another more humane way such that he's punished and that the public are protected. I don't think there's anything remarkably insulting about that, regardless of what the vigilante-justice-advocates in the right-wing press opine.

    It seems to me that you need a more sophisticated and more plausible theory of rights before we start allowing torture. I don't even see the need for it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I don't feel that someone should receive a punishment of torture, but torture should only be used for serious crimes in collecting evidence.
    Absolutely not. Torture should never be used in order to gain information because information from a torture victim is unreliable. If you were strapped to a table, about to have a white hot metal poker applied to your testicles, you'd say whatever your interrogators want to hear to get them to stop.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    But what if they're innocent and have no evidence to give? Just torture them to death and then shrug your shoulders?

    Atleast if you found them guilty first I could sort of understand how some far-right minded person may support torture.
    There are many flaws with torture and it couldn't simply be implemented. I am not suggesting that we should introduce torture at all and I want you to realise that. I would ask that you don't jump onto the old "he is fascist, BNP, Nazi" bandwagon when someone mentions something remotely right win. Someone could mention something left wing, but it not a Communist.

    Back to my point, I can see the advantages to torture under restricted circumstances but there are many flaws. I am definitely not completely closed-minded to the idea though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    There are many flaws with torture and it couldn't simply be implemented. I am not suggesting that we should introduce torture at all and I want you to realise that. I would ask that you don't jump onto the old "he is fascist, BNP, Nazi" bandwagon when someone mentions something remotely right win. Someone could mention something left wing, but it not a Communist.

    Back to my point, I can see the advantages to torture under restricted circumstances but there are many flaws. I am definitely not completely closed-minded to the idea though.
    I didn't really jump on a bandwagon, I just said what I think of you. I think of you as a far right numpty, you can think of me as a substantially left numpty if you like.. but until I've touched the real end of the left spectrum (like you have with the BNP aka National Front) the basis you imply I'm a far-left numpty would be flawed. Although you may believe I am a numpty.

    There's a substantial difference between supporting torture as you implied to gain information and simply seeing the advantages. I can see advantages in the fact we can find scape goats easily but the disadvantages are that when someones holding a cattle prod against your nuts I'll tell you I shagged my own gran for you to not use it.

    (sorry gran)
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I didn't really jump on a bandwagon, I just said what I think of you. I think of you as a far right numpty, you can think of me as a substantially left numpty if you like.. but until I've touched the real end of the left spectrum (like you have with the BNP aka National Front) the basis you imply I'm a far-left numpty would be flawed. Although you may believe I am a numpty.
    Well you have jumped on a bandwagon; you are assuming that simply because I take have a right-wing view on law and order that I have this BNP front, which is simply untrue. You cannot jump to the conclusion that I am BNP from one right wing policy. I feel that I am a Thatcherite and a New Right Thinker, and I tend to hold those policies.

    (Original post by Cardozo)
    There's a substantial difference between supporting torture as you implied to gain information and simply seeing the advantages. I can see advantages in the fact we can find scape goats easily but the disadvantages are that when someones holding a cattle prod against your nuts I'll tell you I shagged my own gran for you to not use it.

    (sorry gran)
    I think we all know that terrorists tend to be thick-skinned and torture would be the only option. I also doubt that they would break as easily as you or me would do. Let me make this point clear, I am not saying that we should introduce torture at all; I am saying that I am not against torture and can see the advantages to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Well you have jumped on a bandwagon; you are assuming that simply because I take have a right-wing view on law and order that I have this BNP front, which is simply untrue. You cannot jump to the conclusion that I am BNP from one right wing policy. I feel that I am a Thatcherite and a New Right Thinker, and I tend to hold those policies.
    You were an active member of the TSR British National Party who were supporting plenty of far-right ideas which applied to more than just law and order, I don't see the assumption...

    :bootyshake:
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    You were an active member of the TSR British National Party who were supporting plenty of far-right ideas which applied to more than just law and order, I don't see the assumption...

    :bootyshake:
    Well I wasn't an active member of the TSR British National Party and there has never been a TSR BNP since I became a member of TSR last year. Like I have said, I am a Thatcherite (New Right Thinker) and I take a tough approach on law and order. You really cannot brand anyone who has any right wing views as a fascist or a BNP supporter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You really cannot brand anyone who has any right wing views as a fascist or a BNP supporter.
    Oh go on! Sure you can. Just the same way that everytime you don't get your own way in debates here you claim that it's all due to a (and I quote) "left-wing conspiracy". Now, I'd sooner believe that you are a fascist than believe that the Left in this House of Commons of ours are capable of uniting together in a conspiratorial manner!
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Oh go on! Sure you can. Just the same way that everytime you don't get your own way in debates here you claim that it's all due to a (and I quote) "left-wing conspiracy". Now, I'd sooner believe that you are a fascist than believe that the Left in this House of Commons of ours are capable of uniting together in a conspiratorial manner!
    The difference is that as soon as someone has a right wing view on one issue, then someone has to jump on the BNP bandwagon, which in this case was Cardozo. With this situation I feel that the left-wing parties unite to stop right-wing legislation from being passed, totally different to this situation.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Well I wasn't an active member of the TSR British National Party and there has never been a TSR BNP since I became a member of TSR last year. Like I have said, I am a Thatcherite (New Right Thinker) and I take a tough approach on law and order. You really cannot brand anyone who has any right wing views as a fascist or a BNP supporter.
    You were, however, the primary supporter of the creation of a TSR BNP party. Had it been created, you would have been an active member....
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    You were, however, the primary supporter of the creation of a TSR BNP party. Had it been created, you would have been an active member....
    The main supporter of TSR BNP was actually Don_Scott, who I believe is now a member of the party which you belong to. I did used to hold views similar to that of the BNP but since then I have dismissed those views and found the views of Thatcher more suited.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The main supporter of TSR BNP was actually Don_Scott, who I believe is now a member of the party which you belong to. I did used to hold views similar to that of the BNP but since then I have dismissed those views and found the views of Thatcher more suited.
    He is not a member, unless he has been admitted in the last day. You were, irrespective, a strong supported. Don_Scott is not even mentioned http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=934498

    This said, you are entitled to change your views, so ok.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    but since then I have dismissed those views and found the views of Thatcher more suited.
    Ah, of course, the sound of **** the working class and **** immigrants (especially if they're european) is much better suited to modern politics than simply: **** immigrants (especially if they're "coloured" ). I can totally dig the difference man.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Ah, of course, the sound of **** the working class and **** immigrants (especially if they're european) is much better suited to modern politics than simply: **** immigrants (especially if they're "coloured" ). I can totally dig the difference man.
    Again, this proves my point that as soon as anyone gives a right-wing view and begins to take a tough approach on immigration and a touch approach on welfare and crime, people such as yourself call them fascists, BNP supporters, Nazis. It is a shame that people such as Nick Griffin, have given the right-wing parties a bad name, but the BNP is so far right wing compared to Thatcher, that the two cannot be compared.

    I'm sure you would have this prejudice anyway, because Thatcher had the guts to do something and she was successful. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party takes another approach, "Oh it's alright Mr Immigrant, you come to our country and we will give a free house and money so you can settle in nicely." "Oh it's alright Mr Murderer, we are sure that you are sorry for what you have done and we allow you rehabilitate because you seem like a nice person." "Oh it's alright Mr Sponger, you haven't got a job and you have **** qualifications so we will give you money to help." It's this wishy-washy nanny state that the Labour Party introduced which has made everyone scared to speak out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Again, this proves my point that as soon as anyone gives a right-wing view and begins to take a tough approach on immigration and a touch approach on welfare and crime, people such as yourself call them fascists, BNP supporters, Nazis. It is a shame that people such as Nick Griffin, have given the right-wing parties a bad name, but the BNP is so far right wing compared to Thatcher, that the two cannot be compared.
    That's where the fallacy lies. The BNP is successful not because it peddles racist nonsense about immigrants but because it puts forward an economic vision of society that you would have once found Labour putting forward. Indeed, it is Labour supporters, in the main, who keep the BNP afloat as a political party. Sure there are fascists in that party but to focus on them is to miss the point. Thatcher, by contrast, was altogether more dangerous.

    I'm sure you would have this prejudice anyway, because Thatcher had the guts to do something and she was successful. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party takes another approach, "Oh it's alright Mr Immigrant, you come to our country and we will give a free house and money so you can settle in nicely." "Oh it's alright Mr Murderer, we are sure that you are sorry for what you have done and we allow you rehabilitate because you seem like a nice person." "Oh it's alright Mr Sponger, you haven't got a job and you have **** qualifications so we will give you money to help." It's this wishy-washy nanny state that the Labour Party introduced which has made everyone scared to speak out.
    If you say so. But if there's such a thing as Broken Britain then it is because the Right are stuck in the same anti-everything mantra they've always been stuck in. It's the Broken Record of Britain and you, my friend, are it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.