Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2013, 11:50 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  1. The need for the information must be great.
2. Torture must be the method that maximizes the likelihood of obtaining the desired information.

Both of which are proven incorrect. Drinking Beverage

Really?

(30-07-2013 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It's circular. "The use of torture is immoral because it is immoral".

I have asked you multiple times to research the fundamentals of the universal bases of morality and you have refused to do so. It is not a circular argument. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
Torture advocates? When did Dick Cheney join TTA?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
30-07-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 11:53 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Torture advocates? When did Dick Cheney join TTA?

I haven't advocated the use of torture if that what you're implying. I'm saying these Mackey, "Torture is bad...mmmmkay" arguments are silly. If there are no situations in which torture maximizes the chances of finding the desired information then torture can never be justified.

Rumsfled would have been a better choice than Cheney.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You committed the fallacy of quoting out of context. You should be ashamed of your error. I used some pretty significant phrases that you, for some reason left out. Phrases like "maximize the likelihood" and "under no circumstances"

I quoted an excerpt which seemed more than sufficient as a summary. If it was insufficient, then it was insufficient, but it was hardly out of context.

"[U]nder no circumstances will [it] increase the likelihood of obtaining the desired information" would seem to me to be equivalent to "torture is 0% effective". The distinction between increasing likelihood and maximizing likelihood is equivocation; only the latter is of any interest. If it has any efficacy, then it will increase the likelihood as compared to doing nothing at all. What matters is whether it increases the likelihood of obtaining correct information as compared to alternative methods of interrogation (which is what I just said).

(30-07-2013 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Further I have said at least a couple of times now in this thread that the "justification for torture is a function of the need for the desired information"....which should suggest to you that I am not leaving aside all moral concerns as you errantly claim. I did claim that saying it was "immoral" is a weak argument. It's circular. "The use of torture is immoral because it is immoral". Do you find that argument compelling? I don't. But that is essentially is a boiled down version of the morality argument being made in this thread.

No one has claimed it is immoral because it is immoral. That is facetious. The moderate argument is that it is immoral because it causes suffering to no benefit. That is perfectly sound moral reasoning; the premise may well be disputed, but the logic is sound.

The stronger (in the sense of more universal) argument is that it is immoral because it causes suffering. That is what you have not acknowledged. Allowing for its efficacy, and allowing for the vanishingly unlikely 24-style 'find the bomb before it goes off' scenario, then it may indeed be a means of averting greater suffering. This does not make it moral; it makes it less immoral.

That is, of course, an opinion. All morality is opinion. This includes yours.

(30-07-2013 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So far in this thread I have given two factors that should be used in determining if torture is justified. Let me spell them out for you.

1. The need for the information must be great.
2. Torture must be the method that maximizes the likelihood of obtaining the desired information.

There are other factors, but these two are the only ones I have espoused in this thread.

Yes. That is a valid stance.

Leaving aside premise 1 (since it is extraordinarily difficult to quantify), we may consider premise 2. In light of all known research on the topic it seems rather unlikely to be true. Torture is not a method which maximizes the likelihood of obtaining the desired information. It is not a method for maximizing the likelihood of obtaining correct information. This is due to the likelihood of obtaining incorrect information.

This brings us to a previous statement of yours:
(30-07-2013 03:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Second, the fact that torture some times results in "false positives" is a red herring. The relevant question is, Does torture increase(or decrease) your chances of obtaining the information you desire.

This is not a red herring. It is incredibly relevant. Torture increases the chance of obtaining information. I agree that far. It is also more likely to produce false information than true information. This is suggested by the numerous links provided by Logica:
(30-07-2013 04:07 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  http://harpers.org/blog/2009/09/torture-...gist-says/
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.de/200...rture.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...71_pf.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...brain.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/lib...apter1.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-l...0/nov/04/2

Therefore to judge its efficacy, one must compare it to alternative methods of interrogation and to their chances of obtaining both an answer and a correct answer. The literature indicates that it fails to be more effective. Therefore use of torture is tantamount to causing human suffering without deriving any benefit from it beyond personal gratification.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 12:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 11:53 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Torture advocates? When did Dick Cheney join TTA?

I haven't advocated the use of torture if that what you're implying. I'm saying these Mackey, "Torture is bad...mmmmkay" arguments are silly. If there are no situations in which torture maximizes the chances of finding the desired information then torture can never be justified.

Rumsfled would have been a better choice than Cheney.

Sounds a lot like advocating torture to me. Petraeus would have probably been the best choice...but most people understand that Cheney is a sleaze bag. Infer what you will.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 12:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is not a red herring. It is incredibly relevant. Torture increases the chance of obtaining information. I agree that far. It is also more likely to produce false information than true information.

It depends on the type of information trying to be extracted and the person you are extracting it from.

If you steal your older brother's pot and hide it, he will torture you to obtain the information that allows him to find it. You quickly learn it doesn't do any good to lie to him because your brother can quickly discover that fact that you did lie and continue to torture you. The only thing that will stop the torture is telling the torturer what he wants to hear...which is the location of the pot. The case of Magnus Gäfgen is an example of just threating to use torture eliciting the desired information

Now if you are looking for information that cannot be readily verified, the person being tortured can get away with lying. The problem with the "evidence" that Logica provided is it comes from cases where most of the time, the information extracted can not be readily verified.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It depends on the type of information trying to be extracted and the person you are extracting it from.

Please provide objective studies.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you steal your older brother's pot and hide it, he will torture you to obtain the information that allows him to find it. You quickly learn it doesn't do any good to lie to him because your brother can quickly discover that fact that you did lie and continue to torture you. The only thing that will stop the torture is telling the torturer what he wants to hear...which is the location of the pot.

This is reductive in so many ways. But okay. Let us consider two individuals and as stolen item. Even then there are far too many variables to make any such conclusions. Such as the time available to the questioner, the time since the incident, the motive, the hiding spot, its accessibility, the ease of checking the data, the severity of torture, the character of the individuals, and more besides. I fail to see how any conclusions may be drawn from a vague hypothetical.

Is it possible to construct a hypothetical scenario in which torture may obtain useful information? Of course it is. Does this scenario then bear much resemblance to any real-world scenario in which torture is or may be used (such as, say, the prisoners at Guantanamo)? No. Should it then inform state policy on torture? I don't see why should.

(30-07-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The case of Magnus Gäfgen is an example of just threating to use torture eliciting the desired information.

One thing immediately stands out to me about that case. No torture occurred. Next...

(30-07-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now if you are looking for information that cannot be readily verified, the person being tortured can get away with lying. The problem with the "evidence" that Logica provided is it comes from cases where most of the time, the information extracted can not be readily verified.

So; "evidence", eh?

Extreme stress literally modifies memory. Torture impairs cognitive function. Is that a state likely to give useful information?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2013, 06:16 PM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
I couldn't watch it. Too disturbing.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 12:52 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(30-07-2013 02:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Is it possible to construct a hypothetical scenario in which torture may obtain useful information? Of course it is. Does this scenario then bear much resemblance to any real-world scenario in which torture is or may be used (such as, say, the prisoners at Guantanamo)? No. Should it then inform state policy on torture? I don't see why should.

The difference between you and me is this. For you every instance of torture is going to be unjustified. For me, I acknowledge that situations might exists which warrant the use of torture so I want to develop a test to judge it. I'm not interested in public policy but rather how to judge it when it does occur.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: