Firstly i would like to say i really like your post
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
You're misinterpreting the word 'torture' as it's used in the document. You then proceed to base your entire argument around it, which makes it incorrect as a whole. You're also lying by omission, as definition 7 has "My back is torturing me." as example, while definition 3 does not even appear on that page.
|
Your assuming my interpretation of torture is incorrect, i presume yours is. I did not intend to leave you without evidence when i posted my dictionary notes, hence why i provided the url, but my point remains torture can be moth mental and physical, that illustrates my point, when i have not been physically effected by the terror, but mentally.
As for definition three, it has a separate url, if you would please pay attention, and is a definition of terrorise. the two are linked but not the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
The document is mostly about protecting people from their governments, not protecting people from other people. In that light, torture is nothing but (mental and physical) violence against prisoners perpetrated by institutions of a government or parts thereof.
|
Again this is your interpretation of the document, and not necessarily what must be the correct view.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Furthermore, I would like to point out that 'life', 'liberty' and 'security of person' are displayed side by side, signifying a sense of equality. This in turn implies that taking away one in favour of one or both of the others would be at best a very strange thing to do, and at worst a wilful act of dismantling one or more basic human rights. And isn't it interesting that that's exactly what "the terrorists" are doing?
|
I don't quite understand what you are saying, are you implying that any of those three parts of a basic right are no more important than the other?
is that all your implying?
I merely point out one of those aspects is affected. I don't get where your argument is in that.
[edit] I loved the summary, but can i point out the statement was intended on a little added security, not the amount which is provided by these new laws? i can still see the point tho[/edit]