I told you in the beginning (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/924815.html?thread=71370383#t71370383) that I was in this for the "art" of the argument. I actually work part-time teaching Math and Logic to help pay for my own schooling, so allow me apologise as no disrespect was intended.

...and your definition of "consistent" does violence to the term.

Which is why it is so important to establish common definition (denominator if you will) at the outset of a debate.

It's also why I'm a Math/Engineering major ;) (that and spelling)

While personally I agree with you that torture in all forms is wrong, I was trying illustrate how someone could "consitantly" argue otherwise. "Consistant" in this case being used in its' logical/mathematical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic#First-order_theories.2C_models.2C_and_elementary_classes). Simply put, disagreeing with someone on moral grounds does not automatically make thier arguments inconsistant or thier logic less sound.

As an aside, Solzhenitsyn is one of my favorite writers, I strongly reccomend looking up his recorded lectures if you get the chance.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html