“As I pointed out in post 15, equivocating on the word “torture” does not make a valid argument.”
I had completely forgotten about the old “post 15” rule - the one where you make a statement and later cite the statement as a source of high credibility.
The brief and the short of it is this: you and Trump are planning to torture some enemies, real or imagined.
What could go wrong with that?
The point illustrated in post 15 was not to appeal to my own authority. It was pointing to a logical equivocation fallacy in the what seems to be the core argument made against waterboarding terrorists in my experience.
As I think the point I made there sound, and I think you have run afoul of that point, and being that it is accessible to all, I invite any who wish to take issue with it and show me a real error in my reasoning or understanding to do so.
Please understand, I see post 15 as making an extremely elementary point. So much so I look forward to seeing it challenged with bemused wonder, as if someone wanted to argue that 1 +1 = 3.
I am sorry, but if you mean by "torture" that which our enemies do not like, but we have even done to some of our own soldiers, without the slightest protest that I have heard from any so far including yourself...well then how can one object unless their position is that one must not do anything to one's enemies that they do not like.
On the other hand, if you mean by "torture" the kind of thing that is unspeakably barbaric and cruel and that we would never do to our own elite soldiers as part of their training because it was simply inhumane, then you have to exclude waterboarding, so your statement becomes false.
Hopefully, you can start to see how your logic is flawed. If not, I can't help you. God bless, it has been a real pleasure easily defeating you in debate.