birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Let's start with the fact that I am not referring to the morality of the issue. Whether it's right or wrong, whether it's something that I support or that I don't. What I was speaking to is that some torture techniques produce the intended results of the torturers on some individuals And some of those same techniques won't work on other individuals, because in some cases their levels of thresholds of pain are higher than some others or that they have been mentally conditioned to not succumb to such tactics. To say definitively that torture works in all cases or that it never produces any results, most-likely says that you're defending your ideology on this position without well-thought reason. My guess is that you aren't that thick to believe that torture never works and that you misunderstood what I was saying. what proof do you have that this staement is true? i'm still witing foir tom to defend his position on the acts deescribed in the report not meeting the threshold of his definition of torture. it's an all too common and all to often allowed and unquestioned conservative tactic: denial of documented facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 what proof do you have that this staement is true? i'm still witing foir tom to defend his position on the acts deescribed in the report not meeting the threshold of his definition of torture. it's an all too common and all to often allowed and unquestioned conservative tactic: denial of documented facts Are you trying to tell me that torture never works? Is that what you are saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Are you trying to tell me that torture never works? Is that what you are saying? i don't see any proof. nor did the authors of the report. show me the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Except that presumes that torture is acceptable under any circumstance. This is your opinion, not a fact. You're making a moral judgement here, and projecting it outward. As a vocal proponent of total war, I disagree. I think the only moral action in war, is to act swiftly, and violently, seeking any advantage and expoliting it, for the benefit of your country and it's citizens, for the quickest possible conclusion of the war. The wholesale destruction of your enemies, or individual attrocities are perfectly acceptable as long as they achieve these outcomes. The United States is supposed to be above this, as evidenced by multiple resolutions signed over our nation's history. The United States takes a high and mighty position in this regard for the purposes of show only. The United States has always tortured, and always will torture, just as every government does. No politician runs on a platform that promotes torture, or enhanced interrogation, because it's untenable to most Americans. Of course no politician runs on a "torture platform". That would be absurd. However many politicians believe it to be accepable under some conditions, and have stated so. Further, our elected officials in both parties have and do torture. I'm more of a "what you do" guy than a "what you say" guy. It's a clear ethical and moral dividing line, You're projecting again, speaking in absolutes where none exist. I explained to you earlier my advocacy of total war, and all it may entail, as the only moral way to proceed in war. it's not about political parties or ideologies. I just demonstrated that it certainly can be. Edited June 16, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 what proof do you have that this staement is true? i'm still witing foir tom to defend his position on the acts deescribed in the report not meeting the threshold of his definition of torture. it's an all too common and all to often allowed and unquestioned conservative tactic: denial of documented facts Defend my position? I didn't even express a position on those acts, you idiot. I expressed a position on comparing the brutality experienced by McCain to such Gitmo tortures as questioning under bright lights, or playing loud rock music, or incorrect calls to afternoon prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 i don't see any proof. nor did the authors of the report. show me the proof. You want me to show you proof? If you want me to post you links of cases that torture has worked, fine. more more and more I could produce many more as "proof", but the fact that you could say that torture never works is simply mind-boggling. What it really says is that you are so partisan, that you are looking at this through the lens of the old 9/11 torture debate. Which I'm not. I'm simply saying that torture works in some cases and it doesn't in others. Oh, and the fact that you are referring to the one-sided partisan report from Senator Feinstein says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Defend my position? I didn't even express a position on those acts, you idiot. I expressed a position on comparing the brutality experienced by McCain to such Gitmo tortures as questioning under bright lights, or playing loud rock music, or incorrect calls to afternoon prayer. wait. you introduced gitmo into the discussion even though it wasn't salient to it? and this statement: "The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners." only applies to gitmo and no other reported acts of us torture? that wasn't at all clear. so now that you've explained we can recharacterize your argument from denial of documented facts to simple obfiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You want me to show you proof? If you want me to post you links of cases that torture has worked, fine. more more and more I could produce many more as "proof", but the fact that you could say that torture never works is simply mind-boggling. What it really says is that you are so partisan, that you are looking at this through the lens of the old 9/11 torture debate. Which I'm not. I'm simply saying that torture works in some cases and it doesn't in others. Oh, and the fact that you are referring to the one-sided partisan report from Senator Feinstein says it all. The "torture doesn't work" argument is less "torture doesn't generate information" as much as it is "torture doesn't generate reliable information," because ultimately everyone has a point where they'll say whatever they need to get the torture to stop. Torture is and always has been a ****ty interrogation technique. Even the Gestapo knew better than to rely on it. wait. you introduced gitmo into the discussion even though it wasn't salient to it? and this statement: "The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners." only applies to gitmo and no other reported acts of us torture? that wasn't at all clear. so now that you've explained we can recharacterize your argument from denial of documented facts to simple obfiscation. I introduced the definition of torture at Gitmo into the discussion. And used that definition to demonstrate that the current definition of "torture" is so ridiculously broad that McCain's personal experience is so far from the current definition of "torture" as to be invalid. It's not my fault you can't !@#$ing read, you idiot. And will you asshats please stop calling it "obfuscation" when people point out that words have meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The "torture doesn't work" argument is less "torture doesn't generate information" as much as it is "torture doesn't generate reliable information," because ultimately everyone has a point where they'll say whatever they need to get the torture to stop. Torture is and always has been a ****ty interrogation technique. Even the Gestapo knew better than to rely on it. I'm not saying that torture is the best way to get reliable information. What I'm saying is that it has produced reliable information in the past and if some torture techniques were to be applied to some people, it would produce reliable information on those individuals. The argument isn't whether or not this is a good way of going about getting information, simply that it has and will continue to produce the intended results of the torturers on some individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You want me to show you proof? If you want me to post you links of cases that torture has worked, fine. more more and more I could produce many more as "proof", but the fact that you could say that torture never works is simply mind-boggling. What it really says is that you are so partisan, that you are looking at this through the lens of the old 9/11 torture debate. Which I'm not. I'm simply saying that torture works in some cases and it doesn't in others. Oh, and the fact that you are referring to the one-sided partisan report from Senator Feinstein says it all. so your first link is based on a lawsuit that the murderer who was allegedly tortured is filing against the german police. seems a bit removed from definitive proof. the second deals with a FILM. there's no citation to the film and i'm assuming that means it's a produced film and not actual footage of interogations but how would anyone know? seems not very convincing proof. the third link doesnt work for me the fourth uses the torture specifically refuted as producinbg usable evidence in the torture report that oliver is discussing. in fact he even shows cheney lying to fox television about this juxtaposed to thereports findings. so...i'm thinking i still haven't seen convincing proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 so your first link is based on a lawsuit that the murderer who was allegedly tortured is filing against the german police. seems a bit removed from definitive proof. the second deals with a FILM. there's no citation to the film and i'm assuming that means it's a produced film and not actual footage of interogations but how would anyone know? seems not very convincing proof. the third link doesnt work for me the fourth uses the torture specifically refuted as producinbg usable evidence in the torture report that oliver is discussing. in fact he even shows cheney lying to fox television about this juxtaposed to thereports findings. so...i'm thinking i still haven't seen convincing proof. I don't give a sh*t if you haven't seen the proof you need to see to satisfy you. It's common sense, every individual is different, some will spill the beans when pushed others won't. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I don't give a sh*t if you haven't seen the proof you need to see to satisfy you. It's common sense, every individual is different, some will spill the beans when pushed others won't. It's as simple as that. that's what i thought. next time i'll not bother to look at your weak references Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 so your first link is based on a lawsuit that the murderer who was allegedly tortured is filing against the german police. seems a bit removed from definitive proof. the second deals with a FILM. there's no citation to the film and i'm assuming that means it's a produced film and not actual footage of interogations but how would anyone know? seems not very convincing proof. the third link doesnt work for me the fourth uses the torture specifically refuted as producinbg usable evidence in the torture report that oliver is discussing. in fact he even shows cheney lying to fox television about this juxtaposed to thereports findings. so...i'm thinking i still haven't seen convincing proof. They don't call you "birddog" for nuthin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 that's what i thought. next time i'll not bother to look at your weak references Yes, and I won't bother you to rationalize anything on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The "torture doesn't work" argument is less "torture doesn't generate information" as much as it is "torture doesn't generate reliable information," because ultimately everyone has a point where they'll say whatever they need to get the torture to stop. Torture is and always has been a ****ty interrogation technique. Even the Gestapo knew better than to rely on it. I introduced the definition of torture at Gitmo into the discussion. And used that definition to demonstrate that the current definition of "torture" is so ridiculously broad that McCain's personal experience is so far from the current definition of "torture" as to be invalid. It's not my fault you can't !@#$ing read, you idiot. And will you asshats please stop calling it "obfuscation" when people point out that words have meaning? yes words have meanings. a perfectly acceptable definition of "torture" bearing no resemblance to that inferred by you can be gleaned from a post in this very thread. it's pretty easy to make definitions ridiculous if they are self authored by a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 It depends on your definition of "torture," which is the entire problem of comparing McCain's experience to Gitmo. McCain was beaten for two hours a day for an extended period, suffering permanent, crippling injury for which medical attention was withheld, and was fed so poorly that he had dysentery for most of his stay, and lost a lot of body weight. Gitmo detainees were...forced to watch infidels handle the Koran, be interrogated by women in skirts, and were overfed to the point of gaining excessive weight. The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners. My definition of torture is clips by John Oliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 My guess is that you aren't that thick to believe that torture never works and that you misunderstood what I was saying. Fair. Are you stoned again? Under an impossible deadline, so it's even worse for my attention to details. This is your opinion, not a fact. You're making a moral judgement here, and projecting it outward. Undeniably so. I admit. My definition of torture is clips by John Oliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 My definition of torture is clips by John Oliver. except that olifver doesn't attempt to define it likely because there are definitions available in resources such as the geneva convention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 except that olifver doesn't attempt to define it likely because there are definitions available in resources such as the geneva convention The depth of your stupidity is unfathomable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The depth of your stupidity is unfathomable. "it is so because i say it is so" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts