But that wasn't my argument. You just made it into such.

My argument was that trained CIA agents responsible for allocating their time towards extracting information as efficiently as possible use it, therefore it works.

That's about as convincing as saying that trained UMF agents responsible for
allocating their time towards extracting information as efficiently as possible
don't use it, therefore it doesn't works.

No its not.

Just because something works doesn't mean something else does not work. Furthermore, there may be differences in the urgency of a given situation, the resolve of the subject, the agency's threshold for acceptance of incomplete information, etc. Furthermore, who's to say that such agencies prohibited from such methods don't wish they could employ them?

Oh, and here's an obvious point - when comparing the relative effectiveness of any technique of anything, doesn't it make far more sense to make comparisons with an agency ALLOWED to do somethings, rather than not?

In any case, your rebuttal is irrelevant.

If your saying that the CIA wouldn't do something if it didn't work, then why
can't I say that the UMF wouldn't not do something if it did work.

You mean you can't figure out why some organizations would use an effective tactic and others would not?

:har:

Here's an easy example: the Air Force dropping bombs is an effective tactic for destroying things. What happens when they run out of bombs? Or the political will to use them disappears?

Does that then mean the tactic of dropping bombs does not destroy things?

Every sovereign country could or could have allow(ed) torture if it wanted to.

If the fact that the CIA can, and do use it is evidence that it is effective,
isn't the fact that other countries could and don't evidence to the contrary?


I don't think that either the former or the latter are good evidence either way,
but if you want to use one, then the other must be accounted for.

No.No it doesn't.

In fact, the idea that it must be accounted for is logically preposterous.


Your argument is akin to this:

Man uses legs to cross street. Ergo, legs effective for crossing street.
Other man does not use legs to cross street. Ergo, the first man's legs are useless for crossing street.

Utterly ridiculous.

Letum doesn't work quite right. Oh he's not on your list of things that do work right. :har::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No, the (invalid) arguments run:

i.e.

If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works

If using legs to cross the street works then people would use it
People don't use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street doesn't work

Neither argument is valid because they are of the form:

If 'x' then 'y'
'y'
Therefore 'x'

If 'x' then 'y'
Not 'y'
Therefore not 'x'

In the 'legs' example 'x' is "using legs to cross the street works" and 'y' is
"people (would) use it".
In the torture example 'x' is "Torture works" and 'y' is "[any given
intelligence organiseation] (would) use it".

You crack me up with the fact that whenever you can't win an argument, you try to break it down into a formula that supports ... well, really nothing substantively.

Man crosses street using legs. Therefore legs are effective at crossing street.

That's invalid? :har:

Sure, buddy.

Problem is, you're flat-out wrong, and the "Man Crossing Street" analogy is far more clear than your formula, and far more accurate.

I work with logic because it produces logical answers. I can't see why you object to that.

"Man crosses street using legs. Therefore legs are effective at crossing street."

Could be tidied up to be valid, but

"If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works"

i.e. "if it didn't work it wouldn't be used. It is; therefor it does."
is not valid.

*Sigh*

See, here's the thing - you (and anyone else breathing with a basic comprehension of the English language) knew exactly what I meant. But, instead of discussing the merits of the issue at hand, you decided to attempt to demonstrate the fallibility of written word versus mathematical constructs.

The problem is that you failed to take into account that such formulas cannot represent the total possibilities laid into place by the original argument. This is why people write with words and not formulas.

For instance, you wrote: In the torture example 'x' is "Torture works" and 'y' is "[any given
intelligence organiseation] (would) use it".

Now, who said anything about "any given intelligence organization"? My original statement could have referred to axiomatic reasonings only related to the CIA (which your formula doesn't account for). Or, it could have been exclusionary (which your formula also doesn't account for). Ultimately, YOU chose to ascribe the most simple reasonings you could think of and base your logic around them in order to attempt to "invalidate" a perfectly reasonable argument that you couldn't logically counter with equal complexity.

The bottom line is, though, in order for any of your simplistic arguments on formulaic logic to work, the issue said formulas represent must be equally as simple. This issue is not. It is rather exceedingly complex.

Now, to your point that you're TRYING to make but using the route most obfuscated: Does the CIA using torture mean that torture works?

No, of course not. That statement taking by itself with no axiomatic, historical, documented context is indeed an invalid argument. But we're not aliens visiting planet Earth for the first time and rendering moral judgement without regard to context, are we? Rather, we are human beings with experiences to temper our understandings, and that is where the context must be laid.

So, let's see ... why would a trained CIA interrogator use torture...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that methods are ineffective.
3 - Methods are effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed.

Now, using common sense, I'm going to eliminate 1, 2, and 4. Number 1 just doesn't make any sense and there are safeguards in place to prevent the odd individual who would engage in such sadistic activities. The same applies to #4.

As for #2, I see it as unlikely because the people in charge would have to be ridiculously moronic to continue a somewhat black program that has been ineffective for decades. In a bureaucracy of budgets, every dollar and minute is accounted for. Furthermore its a game of results that, for all of its shortcomings, the agency has been winning. You only hear about the successes - not the failures.

So, 2 doesn't seem to ring very true.

That leaves us with 3 and 5. I have no problem with either, so long as torture does not involve disfigurement and/or permanant physical disability, AND it is only applied in cases of learning specifics we KNOW the subject is privvy to (as opposed to just beating down a guy and saying "tell us what you know", which seems to be the only thing lefties think the CIA does using enhanced interrogation).

The bottom line is that, using logic tempered with some common sense and seasoned with some historical and modern perspective, the argument can be made and it is perfectly valid...

...and if you want to write the formula that takes all of that into account, go right ahead. I'm going to stick with words - that's why we use them.

Apart from the fact that you can't really know with certainty.
Which is why innocent peope get tortured.

So who's in favor and who's against torture?

In favour of torture:
Aramike
Thomen
CastleBravo
CaptainHaplo
Skybird

Against torture:
Me
Letum
Max2147

Those who feel they are misrepresented may ask to be changed into a different category.

But you torture every person who reads your posts! :D