CIA used mock executions etc.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.