Talk:Ticking time bomb scenario

Human rights Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

This article is obviously biased.216.106.103.204 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have to get rid of the siting of philip watts. he makes a variety of unfounded claims and quotes taken out of context with the goal of promoting a certain point of view. citing that article as credible is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.179.203 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2007

Anyone can edit, just take it out if you don't think it should be included. It certainly does contain a point of view: "We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring 'Bush Step Down And take your program with you.'" The way to obtain a balanced point of view, however is not to remove all points of view, but to balance them. Right now about 75% of Americans agree with Mr. Watts. 199.125.109.122 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG.

better solution? up for debate

Why not allow torture, but only if the torturer(s) are perfectly documented. And if the torture fails in providing information, then the torturer(s) should be charged with murder (if fatal), or other suitable crimes. This way, no one would torture unless they were absolutely certain the suspect was a criminal, because they would jeopardize their own careers and lives by doing so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equus1 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for discussion of the topic.58.84.237.200 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]