RE: At least one Canadian get it.
November 13, 2014 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2014 at 7:30 pm by Heywood.)
(November 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(November 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm the one that acknowledges that torture is a tool commonly used by people just like yourself. Now perhaps you can argue that I am trying to justify severe torture....but then I can argue the exact same thing if you call for someone to be punished by incarceration.
One persons torture is another persons just punishment....its all just a value judgement.
Except that you definition is inherently wrong and I don't except it. Parker has already shown how your definition is differing from the dictionary definition, which I think is far better then yours. As yours is vague and easily contorted.
Lemonvariable......you have it completely backwards.
The difference between my definition and Parker's is the word "severe" which is added to simply justify the acts a person wants to commit but doesn't want to call them torture. "Severe" is so open to interpretation it can mean anything you decide it means. Water boarding isn't torture because it isn't severe. Water boarding is torture because it is severe. I leave out "severe" in my definition of torture because it doesn't tell us anything at all. One person's "severe" might be another person's "ordinary". The key and unambiguous elements of torture are this:
1. Pain or mental anguish.
2. Inflicted onto one person by another.
3. For the purpose of punishment or to extract information.
My definition of torture is short, to the point, and unambiguous. It is useful to me because it helps me to formulate a consistent world view. Parker uses a more nebulous...more malleable definition of torture so his world view can conform to his whims without any care to consistency.
