I'm not morally outraged at all, - I've told people to go and think twice what they would do if terrorists blew up their kids in a schoolbus. Same goes for outrage about "terrorists": What would I have done if my country was invaded? Hopefully hid in the mountains trying to snipe as many of the invaders as possible, just like my granddad did when the Germans came.

Why? Because people are so quick to judge without even trying once to see why the others are doing what they do.

I just think it is a bad idea to poke fun at it. There are times for funny remarks on serious stuff. I think you'll find that this is not it.

>You're probably too morally outraged by all this to appreciate the humor in the phrasing of that sentence.

How about the humor in sentences about raping?

I'd be pretty happy if HN could muster the same uniform moral outrage about rape jokes involving non-terrorists (e.g. gamergate) as it has shown in response to my comment about terrorists being cold. But I guess my priorities are out of whack.

your priorities are shown to be out of whack by the idea that you believe all of the people receiving these treatments are 'terrorists'.

First of all, not all are terrorists, including by the torturers' own admission.

Second, the idea that terrorists (especially as arbitrarily defined, without trial and due process, for years on end) should be tortured is still problematic.

Third, yes they are out of whack. The decent human priorities would be to have the same sympathies for all victims, and the same demand for human rights to be applied in both cases.

There's a big difference between a bunch of gamers on the internet making rape threats between/during halo sessions, and members of the .gov/.mil torturing people in black sites...though there are plenty of people on both sides of the gamergate nonsense who'd love to draw a parallel in their level of supposed persecution.

Also, there seems to be no shortage of outrage on HN towards the perpetrators of such things when such stories are discussed here.