rehmwa 2
Recommended Posts
SkyDekker 1,465
you are wrong
rehmwa 2
Quoteyou are wrong
which are saying: that you think Dreamdancer is very sophisticated, or that I'm naive then?
or is it just an unrelated comment in general to marc? if so, i think he gets plenty of random insults already - some earned, some just offered up for free...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
SkyDekker 1,465
I am saying I don't believe you are rushmc.
rehmwa 2
funny
(seriously - DD called me naive, rush pinged him on the irony meter, you called rush wrong. Though I prefer your answer anyway - I don't mind visiting Iowa, I wouldn't want to stay there)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
(seriously - DD called me naive, rush pinged him on the irony meter, you called rush wrong. Though I prefer your answer anyway - I don't mind visiting Iowa, I wouldn't want to stay there)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteyou are wrong
which are saying: that you think Dreamdancer is very sophisticated, or that I'm naive then?or is it just an unrelated comment in general to marc? if so, i think he gets plenty of random insults already - some earned, some just offered up for free
Some earned??
Well, ya, maybe
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
I think SkyDekker was refering to rush's comment that no new information is asked for during waterboarding. Apparently marc saw some show about interrogation and now he's an expert.
I understand his theory that you only ask questions that you know the answer to, and then punish lies with waterboarding. The problem with that strategy is if some of the information you think you know is wrong, or if the subject doesn't know the right answer, you're right back to forcing the subject to say what you want him to.
For instance, my sources have told me that 2+2=5. I have remwa in the waterboarding room, and ask him what 2+2 is. When he says 4, I subject him to torture. Then I ask him again. Maybe he says 4 again, maybe he takes a guess and says 3. I only stop waterboarding him when he says 5. According to rush, I've now proven to him that I know everything and he better answer truthfully. Obviously I've done no such thing. Since no new information is asked during torture, I'm not sure what I've gained, but I'm sure rushmc can explain what I'm supposed to do from there.
- Dan G
I understand his theory that you only ask questions that you know the answer to, and then punish lies with waterboarding. The problem with that strategy is if some of the information you think you know is wrong, or if the subject doesn't know the right answer, you're right back to forcing the subject to say what you want him to.
For instance, my sources have told me that 2+2=5. I have remwa in the waterboarding room, and ask him what 2+2 is. When he says 4, I subject him to torture. Then I ask him again. Maybe he says 4 again, maybe he takes a guess and says 3. I only stop waterboarding him when he says 5. According to rush, I've now proven to him that I know everything and he better answer truthfully. Obviously I've done no such thing. Since no new information is asked during torture, I'm not sure what I've gained, but I'm sure rushmc can explain what I'm supposed to do from there.
- Dan G
rehmwa 2
QuoteFor instance, my sources have told me that 2+2=5. I have remwa in the waterboarding room, and ask him what 2+2 is. When he says 4, I subject him to torture. Then I ask him again. Maybe he says
ok, I'm also against poorly planned and executed torture for information when my validating information is crappy - glad that's cleared up. Can you name anyone, at least on this board, that would be pro-"poorly conducted interrogation methods"?
however, throwing out specific scenarios where it wouldn't work acknowledges that it can also be done correctly as well - so you are just entering the discussion about risk tradeoff vs the more subjective discussion of basic right vs wrong (absolutist discussion that goes nowhere anyway)
edit:
and you still didn't acknowledge the possibility that some posters just randomly look for rushmc posts and then reply that he's wrong without reading them - it's a fantastic time saver...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
when you see public torture (other countries - think decapitations, and political assassinations) when the victim is on display to create a specific response and push a political agenda - that's one kind. It matters little what's requested nor what the victim (specific here - "victim") knows. it's a show, and it's very wrong
torture as a revenge method, etc, is extremely rare and associated with psychopaths, right? and those mentalities are rare, even though this is the extreme example that you lay your argument on - you watch too many CSI's and other syndicated TV shows. this wrong, and criminal of course
torture as an interrogation tool isn't public nor should it be emotionally choreographed, it's usually hidden, and it's for the intent of gathering critical data. One can argue about its effectiveness all day, but the intent is very clear. Secret torture doesn't garner any political gain, nor and public relations gain (only losses). This item is the one people should really be debating. I'd think that doing this in an effective manner is likely rigorous, strategic and time consuming enough that other methods should be preferred - already discussed with Andy in a good conversation that didn't include idiotic personal jabs. right vs wrong is pretty contextual otherwise
those are a couple types that I can conceive up front - I'm sure there are more
naivety is assuming that only your narrow view of a subject - as defined to you by an extreme set of narrow, biased, prejudiced, emotive-only and political viewpoints is (right back atcha then since you insist) pretty much your area of strength. stick with it, it's good clean fun
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites