Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Only if you guess the same card every time until it pops up, can you say this with certainty.
You fail statistics forever.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More Evidence That Torture Doesn't Work
More Evidence That Torture Doesn't WorkFollow
You fail statistics forever.
publiusvarus wrote:
Torture works. It's really that simple.
It is not a reliable method of gathering reliable information. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and the only way to know is to spend time and resources tracking and verifying every proffered piece of information.
Roughly the same amount of time and resource could be used up front to gain reliable information.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Bardalicious wrote:
Thanks for that, I suppose expecting people to read with general understanding is a big no-no here.
I'm preemptively saving you from a gbaji essay on liberal thinking and how it correlates to guessing cards and the simple mistake you made and oversight and liberal agenda and homosexual agenda and gays and Kenyan terrorists and Barack Osama .
Bardalicious wrote:
who me?
Yes. I'm on to you...
CBD wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Thanks for that, I suppose expecting people to read with general understanding is a big no-no here.
I'm preemptively saving you from a gbaji essay on liberal thinking and how it correlates to guessing cards and the simple mistake you made and oversight and liberal agenda and homosexual agenda and gays and Kenyan terrorists and Barack Osama .
Bardalicious wrote:
who me?
Yes. I'm on to you...
Apparently not, or else you would of realized that I -AM- gbaji and was setting myself up for an epic (as in ridiculously long and boring) post.
Bardalicious wrote:
Apparently not, or else you would of realized that I -AM- gbaji and was setting myself up for an epic (as in ridiculously long and boring) post.
One step ahead of you! I used my Liberal Hive Mind to see this already, the entire goal was to save you from having to write that in the first place.
If you'll excuse me, I need to go smuggle babies across the border.
CBD wrote:
If you'll excuse me, I need to go smuggle babies across the border.
That's lucky, our barbeque night isn't until Thursday.
No matter what conclusion a scientist who has never done torture before says, he will not convince proponents of torture. I think torture is disgusting, but I won't deny that sometimes it does work.
The issue of using torture to extract urgent national security information could be swiftly resolved, if an alternate, effective method of extracting information is found.
There are plenty of opponents of torture here, surely someone can think of an alternative, more humane way to extract information?
The issue of using torture to extract urgent national security information could be swiftly resolved, if an alternate, effective method of extracting information is found.
There are plenty of opponents of torture here, surely someone can think of an alternative, more humane way to extract information?
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Has the whole @#%^ing world forgotten the old axiom "the ends don't justify the means?"
1. You don't know what an axiom is do you?
2. It's a blatantly false saying.
Allegory wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Has the whole @#%^ing world forgotten the old axiom "the ends don't justify the means?"
1. You don't know what an axiom is do you?
Yup. He used the word incorrectly. Did you fail to understand what he was saying though? You really should take a communication arts class sometime. Probably drive you batty though, but it might be good for you...
Quote:
2. It's a blatantly false saying.
No. It's a statement which is sometimes true and sometimes false. It's like saying "That road leads into town". If it does, then it's true. If it doesn't, then it's false.
Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Sometimes, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd label the statement itself as "blatantly false".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=torture-interferes-with-memory-09-09-21
And that is why conservatives despise the educated liberals and their fancy, elitist peer reviewed publications. They prove their talking points wrong too often.
Scientific American wrote:
You’ve heard of waterboarding used as a means to get suspected terrorists to talk. Some people object to such methods on the grounds that they amount to torture. But in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, psychologist Shane O’Mara of Trinity College in Dublin raises another objection: torture's not likely to work.
Proponents claim that waterboarding's effective because prisoners will tell the truth to make the interrogation stop. But O’Mara says that’s not supported by scientific evidence. Harsh interrogation doesn’t motivate prisoners to tell the truth. It motivates them to talk. Because while they’re talking they’re not being waterboarded. But that doesn’t mean that what they say is true.
What’s more, prolonged extreme stress impairs memory retrieval. American Special Ops soldiers have been shown to have trouble recalling things they’d learned before being subjected to food- or sleep-deprivation as part of their training. That’s because stress hormones can compromise brain activity, especially in regions involved in memory.
O’Mara notes that mildly stressful events actually facilitate recall. So simply capturing, moving and then questioning prisoners, he says, should be stressful enough to get the information flowing.
Proponents claim that waterboarding's effective because prisoners will tell the truth to make the interrogation stop. But O’Mara says that’s not supported by scientific evidence. Harsh interrogation doesn’t motivate prisoners to tell the truth. It motivates them to talk. Because while they’re talking they’re not being waterboarded. But that doesn’t mean that what they say is true.
What’s more, prolonged extreme stress impairs memory retrieval. American Special Ops soldiers have been shown to have trouble recalling things they’d learned before being subjected to food- or sleep-deprivation as part of their training. That’s because stress hormones can compromise brain activity, especially in regions involved in memory.
O’Mara notes that mildly stressful events actually facilitate recall. So simply capturing, moving and then questioning prisoners, he says, should be stressful enough to get the information flowing.
And that is why conservatives despise the educated liberals and their fancy, elitist peer reviewed publications. They prove their talking points wrong too often.
No. We despise them when they misused studies like this to draw conclusions which match their political ideology, but not the actual facts they're working on. It's about interpretation of the data and this is a wonderful example of doing it poorly.
You want the person/people you're interrogating to have a hard time remembering. Because people tend to forget the things which are least "strong" in their memory first. So you'll forget the combination to your luggage long before you forget your street address, and you'll forget that before you forget your name, or what you've been working on (and who you've been working with) for the last year.
More importantly, you'll forget the BS story you told the interrogator the last time he asked you that set of questions. This allows interrogators to find inconsistencies in the story and work towards the truth. When you can't remember your lies, you're left with the truth. And that, you usually don't forget no matter how stressed you are. You keep interrogating someone until they give you consistent answers.
When you have multiple people, it's even more effective. They may have cooked up a common story starting out, but it'll quickly fall apart as you question them. Over time, you'll break through the initial lies and then eventually get to where you get them all to give you consistent information. Since they could not have all come up with the same consistent made up story, it's presumably the truth.
This article proves nothing more than the inability for folks involved in research to actually understand the thing they are researching. To fail to grasp that memory loss is what you want, but instead label it as something which shows that harsh interrogation doesn't work shows pretty clearly that any amount of book learning can fail you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
This article proves nothing more than the inability for folks involved in research to actually understand the thing they are researching.
This is classic.
Edited, Sep 21st 2009 7:16pm by CBD
I still dont understand the intellectual disconnect that allows some folk to believe its ok to torture when its 'us' doing it against 'them', but then those same people go on to justify the whole war against the terrorists(lol) in terms of "But, but, but, they are barbarians who are out to turn the world into an Islamic Caliphate, and impose Sharia law, and they think life is cheap, and they do torture against wimminz and and and.... stuff!"
Even if torture did work, wich it has been demonstrated heaps of times that it categorically does not work in any sort of reliable way, the whole point of 'them' and 'us' is that we're supposed to be better than that.
If 'we' condone torture as an acceptable way of behaving, we are no better than the scumbags whom we are fighting against.
Ergo, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.
Good job, torture supporters! Why do you hate the 'West'?
Even if torture did work, wich it has been demonstrated heaps of times that it categorically does not work in any sort of reliable way, the whole point of 'them' and 'us' is that we're supposed to be better than that.
If 'we' condone torture as an acceptable way of behaving, we are no better than the scumbags whom we are fighting against.
Ergo, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.
Good job, torture supporters! Why do you hate the 'West'?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Yup. He used the word incorrectly. Did you fail to understand what he was saying though? You really should take a communication arts class sometime. Probably drive you batty though, but it might be good for you...
Understanding someone is no reason not to belittle them for their ignorance.
Quote:
No. It's a statement which is sometimes true and sometimes false. It's like saying "That road leads into town". If it does, then it's true. If it doesn't, then it's false.
Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Sometimes, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd label the statement itself as "blatantly false".
Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Sometimes, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd label the statement itself as "blatantly false".
Nope, that's not analogous. Think about it for a couple of hours and get back to me.
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This article proves nothing more than the inability for folks involved in research to actually understand the thing they are researching.
This is classic.
Remember the time Gbaji argued for pages that a study actually found the opposite of its conclusion (because it didn't match Gbaji's ideology) and kept saying over and over again how he was using the "data!" to prove the researchers wrong despite not having access to any part of the study beyond a condensed version of its conclusion page?
Now THAT was classic.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
No. It's a statement which is sometimes true and sometimes false. It's like saying "That road leads into town". If it does, then it's true. If it doesn't, then it's false.
Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Sometimes, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd label the statement itself as "blatantly false".
Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Sometimes, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd label the statement itself as "blatantly false".
Because it is false. The end always justifies the means, though I don't like that particular wording of the idea. The problem is that people misunderstand the concept; they falsely define one objective as the "ends" when the world obviously continues far beyond that. Sustainability is a concept often overlooked.
Think about illegal obtained evidence. A man is discovered to have detailed plans about an enterprise to sell cocaine candy to elementary school children, but the evidence was obtained after an officer broke into the man's house on a hunch. Some would say an example of the ends justifying the means would be trying the man even though the evidence was obtained illegally. I disagree completely. Is this guy the last person in the world who is ever going to sell drugs? Is the universe going to explode tomorrow? This isn't the "end" yet. By accepting illegal evidence we allow for a culture where people's freedoms are regularly violated; that is much more of an "end" than the conviction of one delinquent. You can't stop halfway.
It's similar to challenging your friend to a 10km race, sprinting the first 100 meters, and then declaring victory. No, the race isn't over yet. It is not the "end." Whatever gain you have early on is irrelevant. Your means of sprinting hasn't accomplished anything yet. If you end up winning your race, then sure it was apparently an appropriate strategy.
A "good" end can never be reached by a "bad" means. When a means seems obviously "wrong," and a favorable outcome was achieved, then that favorable outcome is probably only a temporary gain.
idk about waterboarding, but torture works for me in the sense that I'm making that poor ******* suffer for whatever it is he's keeping from me
Quote:
You don't know what an axiom is do you?
"The ends don't justify the means" is definitely an axiom. It is though, an ethical axiom instead of a mathematical or logical axiom.
Might be more precise to call it a maxim instead.
Fynlar wrote:
idk about waterboarding, but torture works for me in the sense that I'm making that poor ******* suffer for whatever it is he's keeping from me
Unless they're innocent.
Quote:
"The ends don't justify the means" is definitely an axiom. It is though, an ethical axiom instead of a mathematical or logical axiom.
Might be more precise to call it a maxim instead.
Might be more precise to call it a maxim instead.
Don't contradict Allegory, Pensive. He tends to go into these... rages.
Sometimes, he even says "fudge".
Edited, Sep 21st 2009 11:35pm by Kavekk
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
"The ends don't justify the means" is definitely an axiom. It is though, an ethical axiom instead of a mathematical or logical axiom.
No. It is is no way self evident nor universally recognized. It's just an opinion, and a really bad one at that. It is also ridiculous to attribute morality to method rather than the result; you might as well say "You're succeeding incorrectly!"
Edited, Sep 21st 2009 6:40pm by Allegory
Quote:
No. It is is no way self evident nor universally recognized.
Neither is that the sum of even and odd numbers is always odd.
But besides that, axioms aren't as strong in ethics as they are in logic.
***
Quote:
It is also ridiculous to attribute morality to method rather than the result; you might as well say "You're succeeding incorrectly!"
This is incorrect.
Edited, Sep 21st 2009 7:48pm by Pensive
Allegory wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
"The ends don't justify the means" is definitely an axiom. It is though, an ethical axiom instead of a mathematical or logical axiom.
No. It is is no way self evident nor universally recognized. It's just an opinion, and a really bad one at that. It is also ridiculous to attribute morality to method rather than the result; you might as well say "You're succeeding incorrectly!"
I believe you're interpreting it overly simply. There's lots of implied meaning in the statement that's supposed to be considered, some of which you were posting about above. In fact, your own example of why it's false was also an example of why it's true. Your problem appears to more with the phrasing, but a reasoned examination can still draw out the point from that phrasing pretty easily.
Quote:
Don't contradict Allegory, Pensive. He tends to go into these... rages.
Stop cleverly taunting me.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Don't contradict Allegory, Pensive. He tends to go into these... rages.
Stop cleverly taunting me.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
How's the philosophising going?
Quote:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
How's the philosophising going?
How's the philosophising going?
Impotently ironic.
***
I do have jury duty tomorrow. I need to figure out where to go.
Edited, Sep 21st 2009 8:12pm by Pensive
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This article proves nothing more than the inability for folks involved in research to actually understand the thing they are researching.
This is classic.
How else would you describe someone doing a study in which they determined that harsh interrogation techniques create stress and can lead to short term memory loss and conclude that this is a reason *not* to use such stressful methods?
It's a perfect example of how you can do all the math right, dot all the "i"s, cross all the "t"s, and yet still come to the absolute wrong conclusion because you're leading the data with your own personal beliefs. It's not the results of the study I'm questioning, but the conclusion based on said results. Did they ask people involved in interrogation whether or not said memory loss was actually helpful or detrimental to their work? Or did they just leap to that assumption?
It's how you take what was presumably months of work and destroy it with one idiotic assumption at the end.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 747
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (747)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- More Evidence That Torture Doesn't Work
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC