This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Sas148
I suppose I should have made a separate reply rather than just an edit...
Let's think of these debates as timed debates. Once the subject changes, the debate ends and
new
debate starts. This would likely help to keep continued hostile debate between individuals limited to a shorter time frame rather than continuing for days.
Try it out, let's see how it works.
Post by
Atik
Lower the age, no. Mandate annual testing for drivers over the age of 65, yes.
(and I'm 45, for the record).
I've seen many accidents occur at the hands of the elderly, who didn't have the capacity to drive a car (physical or mental).
Agreed there. The accident statistics look like a giant punch bowl. High at a young age, just as high at an older age.
Also agree.
As someone who works in a busy parking lot for most of the week? I feel far safer when I see a teen or young adult behind the wheel of the nearest car than when I see a little old woman with a permenate scowl plastered on her face.
Granted, I feel the safest when they're driven by people that look to be late 20s to mid 40s, or when there are no cars at all. But that is besides the point.
Post by
yukonjack
No, the current age is fine though there could be an added component to the road test in the form of high performance driving. I know this might seem counterproductive to safe driving but actually just the opposite is true. Knowing how to respond to an emergency situation while driving such as hitting a slippery patch of road, swerving to avoid a collision or any number of mishaps can and has saved lives.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think driving licences are much more lax in the US. In the UK, there are 20 mandatory lessons at over £10 each (failing ensures they have to be retaken) and then insurance is prohibitively expensive until the age of 25.
My uncle pointed out it'd be cheaper for me to get a flight to the US, receive driving instructions from him, then use an international licence... Except I still wouldn't be able to afford insurance here. Plus, given the fact that my father has never been able to drive due to his dyspraxia*, I figure I probably woudn't be a great driver anyway.
*He took driving lessons when he was younger. His instructor asked him if he swore. When he responded in the affirmative, the instructor said he was the worst %^&*ing bastard he'd ever had in the car.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I suppose I should have made a separate reply rather than just an edit...
Let's think of these debates as timed debates. Once the subject changes, the debate ends and
new
debate starts. This would likely help to keep continued hostile debate between individuals limited to a shorter time frame rather than continuing for days.
Try it out, let's see how it works.
If I can add to this - if there's still the desire to debate a topic after the DOTD moves on, there's always the opportunity to create a new thread for it, as has been now done with the Religion thread.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#33: Should it be legal to torture a suspect for information?
Post by
Magician22773
More information is needed on this one I think.
What kind of suspect. (Military or Civil Criminal)?
Define "torture".
For examples. Military combatants in a time of war being deprived of sleep, subjected to loud music, and dunked in water (but removed before any chance of drowning), it fine in my opinion. I don't believe any of the above methods are "torture". Annoying as hell, yes. Scary, yes. Effective,
yes
.
Now, if we are talking about a civil criminal, than no. Our justice system, flawed as it is, does preserve an individuals rights until proven guilty. So anything, from simple questioning on up, is protected by law.
I also do not agree with "barbaric" forms of torture, even in a military setting. Electrocution, bamboo under the fingernails, or cutting off toes is just wrong no matter what. War or not, basic human decency has to be followed here.
Post by
Squishalot
Now, if we are talking about a civil criminal, than no. Our justice system, flawed as it is, does preserve an individuals rights until proven guilty. So anything, from simple questioning on up, is protected by law.
Why would (should?) your justice system apply differently to military cases? What if the person is, say, a terrorist, someone with military-like intent, but not located in a military zone?
Post by
Sas148
I actually concur with Magician. The terminology for torture is very vague. People see various things as a form of torture. Looking at family vacation photos is a form of torture to some people (being a bit ridiculous with that example, I know).
However, this:
I also do not agree with "barbaric" forms of torture, even in a military setting. Electrocution, bamboo under the fingernails, or cutting off toes is just wrong no matter what. War or not, basic human decency has to be followed here.
pretty much sums up my feelings on extreme torture for any case in any situation.
Post by
FatalHeaven
For the purposes of this debate topic, we'll assume torture to be physically harming a person.
But I have to disagree with Magician on the head-in-water thing. It might work but that can torture even if it were 100% safe from drowning them. Which it's not.
Secondary drowning - Inhaled fluid can act as an irritant inside the lungs. Physiological responses to even small quantities include the extrusion of liquid into the lungs (pulmonary edema) over the following hours, but this reduces the ability to exchange air and can lead to a person "drowning in their own body fluid". Certain poisonous vapors or gases (as for example in chemical warfare), or vomit can have a similar effect. The reaction can take place up to 72 hours after a near drowning incident, and may lead to a serious condition or death.
Source.
Post by
Squishalot
But I have to disagree with Magician on the head-in-water thing. It might work but that can torture even if it were 100% safe from drowning them. Which it's not.
I'd agree with this. I'd relate it back to 'civil criminal' assault charges - having someone's head in water involuntarily would constitute assault. Anything else that would result in an assault charge or worse would probably be fairly defined as 'torture', in my opinion.
Post by
Adamsm
#33: Should it be legal to torture a suspect for information?
No, since torture rarely if ever get's truthful responses; most people being tortured will just start blurting out whatever the captives want to hear, whether if it's true or not to make the pain stop.
Post by
asakawa
Christopher Hitchens thought waterboarding didn't constitute torture and thought it was okay. He was challenged to be subject to it, agreed and quickly changed his mind about whether it's torture or not.
here's the video
It's uncomfortable viewing so don't force yourself to watch it.
I think torture is dehumanising for the victim and the torturer. I think it's bad for society. I think we should try to be better than the kinds of people who do those things not simply more devious in finding ways to carry out torture which we can tell ourselves are okay.
edit: Is that the only reason Adamsm? If it was shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be effective would you be okay with it?(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
edit: Is that the only reason Adamsm? If it was shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be effective would you be okay with it?
Since I follow the Wiccan creed of 'Do what you will, but harm none' I think you can guess that answer lol.
Post by
Sas148
I was expecting more for some reason... I didn't necessarily find it uncomfortable either. I'm uncomfortable that I didn't find it uncomfortable.
Post by
asakawa
No I didn't find it that uncomfortable either but I'm sure some would and I don't want to be insensitive to them. Thought it was worth a warning.
Post by
Sas148
Oh, well at least I know I wasn't the only one that didn't find it that extreme. :D
Was starting to think I had become desensitized or whatever word they're using for games and movies these days.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
I think torture should not be used to extract confessions in most countries in the world (as a purely legal matter), as using it in this manner would be violating
international law
by the signatories of the linked treaty, as well as Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think waterboarding is torture, as evidenced by
this study
demonstrating it was constantly referred to as torture by the US media until doing so became oppositional to the claims of the establishment. McCain also points out that Japanese soldiers were executed in World War 2 after subjecting US citizens to waterboarding, as it was considered a form of torture. Certain methods of claiming exemptions for specific non-citizens may violate article 6 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I believe that claiming torture is permissible and effective will lead to its use against US citizens and military personnel in the hopes of extracting information.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.