Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2015, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 07:54 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(29-09-2015 07:26 PM)yakherder Wrote:  That said, I don't even want to get into the debate as to whether or not waterboarding is ethical. That has more to do with one's level of empathy than with the content of the debate, and is therefore difficult to argue either way.

It is kind of a wisdom of the crowds kind of thing. The problem though....is the crowd can be manipulated by giving the crowd information which causes it to become more homogeneous instead of information which maintains its diversity. If all the crowd hears is "torture doesn't work" then the crowd will think torture doesn't work. However if the crowd hears about instances of when torture worked and when it didn't, it will be better equipped to tell when "torture" needs to be used and when it doesn't or is inappropriate.

It is funny because almost everyday I see stuff that prompts me to remark to myself, "The sheeple are being taught."....then I wonder how much of a sheeple I am but I just don't know it.

Maybe the reason I am such a dissenter is I simply do not wish to be taught by the societal collective intellect and would rather just do my own thinking and make my own judgments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 11:19 PM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(29-09-2015 07:26 PM)yakherder Wrote:  That said, I don't even want to get into the debate as to whether or not waterboarding is ethical. That has more to do with one's level of empathy than with the content of the debate, and is therefore difficult to argue either way.

I don't have much difficulty Dodgy If you wanna be the "Good guys" then you don't do that shit. If you don't care about being the good guys and only care about winning whatever little conflict your suspect has info on, by all means go ahead. Don't expect people to sit back and say "Oh, that's alright then".

Sure, soldier got a job to do. Person's life or comfort not exactly important to the soldier. Things that help get the job done faster - anything goes. But somewhere on the chain of command there has to be accountability for bullshit.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-09-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(29-09-2015 04:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In which case all punishment is torture. Thereby making the term meaningless.

The term is meaningless as far as I am concerned. One persons torture is simply another persons interrogation techniques.

And one man's self-defense is another man's murder.

A functioning society requires legal definitions.

(29-09-2015 04:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This never happens.

When you invent the scenarios, it's obviously trivial to make them show what you'd like. Reality doesn't have to play along.

Shortly after William Buckley was captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon many of his fellow agents either disappeared or were known to be killed. How did this happen? Because Hezbollah tortured Buckley for 15 months and he rolled on his cohorts.

Your scenario explicitly involved limited time. I would not call 15 months comparable. So you're already abandoning the parameters of your own hypothetical...

(29-09-2015 04:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  When Russians were kidnapped in Lebanon and negotiations for their release broke down. A close relative of the kidnappers was then kidnapped. The Russians(presumably) sent the testicles of the person they kidnapped to the original kidnappers....who then released their captives.

Yes, because that sounds true.

(29-09-2015 04:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There are plenty of situations were torture has yielded outcomes desired by those doing the torturing.

So what? Plenty of sub-optimal methods still produce better than nothing. The question that actually matters is determining the best methods. In which case, then, you're surely aware that in any and all studies done on the matter, and thus, in the opinion of experts, coercive interrogations are the least likely to produce accurate and actionable information?

If you'd just cut right to "I just really want to hurt people who did things I don't like", you'd save us all a lot of time.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(29-09-2015 07:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 07:26 PM)yakherder Wrote:  That said, I don't even want to get into the debate as to whether or not waterboarding is ethical. That has more to do with one's level of empathy than with the content of the debate, and is therefore difficult to argue either way.

It is kind of a wisdom of the crowds kind of thing. The problem though....is the crowd can be manipulated by giving the crowd information which causes it to become more homogeneous instead of information which maintains its diversity. If all the crowd hears is "torture doesn't work" then the crowd will think torture doesn't work. However if the crowd hears about instances of when torture worked and when it didn't, it will be better equipped to tell when "torture" needs to be used and when it doesn't or is inappropriate.

Saying something doesn't word does not imply that it never works. It means a success rate lower than alternatives.
(was that equivocation intentional?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(29-09-2015 04:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't have a problem making people suffer in order to compel them to provide information, to take a particular action, or as punishment.

You have been saying that Davis was imprisoned for her religious beliefs, which is false. She defied a judge and the law says she goes to the slammer. She was sent to jail to compel a particular action (i.e. to do her job) and she was imprisoned to punish her for defying the judge, the law, and depriving people of their rights under the constitution. How can you not see this as a contradiction to what you have said already?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(30-09-2015 11:37 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 04:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't have a problem making people suffer in order to compel them to provide information, to take a particular action, or as punishment.

You have been saying that Davis was imprisoned for her religious beliefs, which is false. She defied a judge and the law says she goes to the slammer. She was sent to jail to compel a particular action (i.e. to do her job) and she was imprisoned to punish her for defying the judge, the law, and depriving people of their rights under the constitution. How can you not see this as a contradiction to what you have said already?

Because "you may face jail time if you refuse to carry out the duly mandated role of the office you swore to uphold" doesn't fuel a righteous persecution complex in quite the same way.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
30-09-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(30-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because "you may face jail time if you refuse to carry out the duly mandated role of the office you swore to uphold" doesn't fuel a righteous persecution complex in quite the same way.

Some have claimed that torture doesn't work. If torture doesn't work what makes you think jailing a person for contempt of court is going to work? Should it be illegal to jail a person for refusing to testify because they could always tell you what you want to hear to get out of jail?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(30-09-2015 12:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because "you may face jail time if you refuse to carry out the duly mandated role of the office you swore to uphold" doesn't fuel a righteous persecution complex in quite the same way.

Some have claimed that torture doesn't work. If torture doesn't work what makes you think jailing a person for contempt of court is going to work? Should it be illegal to jail a person for refusing to testify because they could always tell you what you want to hear to get out of jail?

Those are separate matters. Do you think it helps somehow for you to pretend you don't know that?

Torture is either punitive or interrogative. That case is neither - it is removing an obstruction to the exercise of a government office.

It is not possible in either your country or mine to compel testimony. If you're going to make up hypotheticals, could they at least be relevant?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-09-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(30-09-2015 12:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 12:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some have claimed that torture doesn't work. If torture doesn't work what makes you think jailing a person for contempt of court is going to work? Should it be illegal to jail a person for refusing to testify because they could always tell you what you want to hear to get out of jail?

Those are separate matters. Do you think it helps somehow for you to pretend you don't know that?

Torture is either punitive or interrogative. That case is neither - it is removing an obstruction to the exercise of a government office.

It is not possible in either your country or mine to compel testimony. If you're going to make up hypotheticals, could they at least be relevant?

It is not a separate matter. If waterboarding isn't going to compel a terrorist to tell the truth, why should we have any expectation that jailing a witness is going to compel them to testify truthfully?

Coercion works. Torture is coercion that is why it is used all over the world. You're just trying to justify the coercion your willing to impose on a person by saying the label "torture" doesn't apply and somehow magically it becomes ethical.

What makes coercion unethical is the circumstances in which it is employed not the act itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 01:09 PM
RE: Fiorina Tries Waterboarding
(30-09-2015 12:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is not a separate matter. If waterboarding isn't going to compel a terrorist to tell the truth, why should we have any expectation that jailing a witness is going to compel them to testify truthfully?

Because the latter is grossly illegal under either your or my country's laws? As in, nobody would ever be in the position to do so, even if they were possessed by the fever dream that it's a good idea?

Your hypotheticals really need work, champ.

(30-09-2015 12:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Coercion works. Torture is coercion that is why it is used all over the world. You're just trying to justify the coercion your willing to impose on a person by saying the label "torture" doesn't apply and somehow magically it becomes ethical.

Again with the "yabut, it doesn't never work, so there!" bit. Which, again, nobody has denied. So I'm left wondering why you mention it. Again. Apropos of nothing and nobody.

What seems to escape you is that it is worse than alternatives at obtaining information. That's not opinion; it's plain fact in every analysis conducted on the subject.

Incidentally, torture has actual legal definitions. I invite you to look some of them up.
(hint: those definitions are not, contrary to what you seem to think, "anything which ever involves doing something someone might not like, ever"; they are most certainly not merely "anything coercive")

(30-09-2015 12:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What makes coercion unethical is the circumstances in which it is employed not the act itself.

All social systems are fundamentally coercive, or else meaningless.

To try to pretend there is no such thing as degree or context, as you are apparently going for, is idiotic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: