Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[ATM]

I have to agree completely. I'm not here to advocate mass implementation of these things. Mostly I'm interested in the mental disconnect of someone who would shoot another human being, or send others to do it for them, but would not slap someone to bring about the same desired effect.

I may shoot someone acting against another, but not slap someone based on their knowledge.

Explain the disconnect, please.

 

[Woobie]

I may shoot someone acting against another, but not slap someone based on their knowledge.

Explain the disconnect, please.

You may shoot someone to stop them from hurting another. You would not slap someone to prevent them from hurting another. You may cloak it in a deceptive term such as knowledge. But the knowledge is only one component of a series of acts designed to culminate in the mass hurting of others. You slap them to bring about the interruption in that chain of events. I don't care if they know how to build a dirty bomb. I care what other mental processes have taken place which have lead or are leading to physical action.

Just because you misrepresent the aim of the activity does not make the activity wrong, only your description of it.

 

[ATM]

You may shoot someone to stop them from hurting another. You would not slap someone to prevent them from hurting another...

If you must rephrase my position to defeat it, you likely realize that you can't win.

Which of us is being deceptive?

 

[jamil]

I may shoot someone acting against another, but not slap someone based on their knowledge.

Explain the disconnect, please.

It's simple. But the only disconnect is your different perspectives. It's like I said. It's about cost and efficacy. And I'll ad another. Value. He places a higher value on the lives of the innocent, and therefore, on the information that could save them, than he does on the lives of the people doing harm and have knowledge of future harm. To Woobie, the the moral cost is higher for not trying to get information to save innocent people, than it is to use EIT on Terrorists. That your values and estimations of cost and efficacy might be different does not make either of you more moral or better than the other.

If he judges you by his values, he might think you're immoral for not placing a higher value on innocent people. If you judge him by your values, you might think he's immoral for extracting that information. So right now, we're looking at this and trying to discover the real facts and we're making judgements about other people's values. I think it's fair to draw lines and have boundaries, but I think it's unfair, as long as we're operating in a legitimate, reasonable, linear area, to hold someone else to your exact values.

 

[ATM]

...I think it's fair to draw lines and have boundaries, but I think it's unfair, as long as we're operating in a legitimate, reasonable, linear area, to hold someone else to your exact values.

I don't care what anyone else believes is fair/unfair, only why.

 

[jamil]

I don't care what anyone else believes is fair/unfair, only why.

Why? Different perspectives. Maybe you want to change someone's perspective to be more like yours. What are you willing to do to get them there? Why do you think it's up to you to change someone else? If they have a right to knowledge, don't they have a right to perspective too? So what are you willing to do to change someone's mind? EIT? Force? Threats? Subversion? Manipulation? Ridicule? Persuasion? Conversation?

 

[ATM]

Why? Different perspectives. Maybe you want to change someone's perspective to be more like yours. What are you willing to do to get them there? Why do you think it's up to you to change someone else? If they have a right to knowledge, don't they have a right to perspective too? So what are you willing to do to change someone's mind? EIT? Force? Threats? Subversion? Manipulation? Ridicule? Persuasion? Conversation?

To change one's mind? Anything short of initiating aggression against their natural rights.

What are you willing to do?

 

[jamil]

To change one's mind? Anything short of initiating aggression against their natural rights.

What are you willing to do?

it depends. If what they believe is no threat or negative consequence to me or my family, or people I care about, I really don't see it as my place to change people's minds. I'm not out to make people think like me. I might engage people in conversation about it, exchange ideas, or debate. In the process I may change my mind, or I might change someone's mind.

As an example, your belief in NAP isn't threatening to me. Neither is your belief in Anarcho Capitalism. Neither is your belief about 9/11. I don't care to change your mind about any of that stuff. I'm not an activist. I don't need for other people to be just like me. I'm happy to think like I think and let them think like they think. But if you say something I disagree with, I'll give you my opinion. And you're welcome to do with that whatever you want.

 

[ATM]

it depends. If what they believe is no threat or negative consequence to me or my family, or people I care about, I really don't see it as my place to change people's minds. I'm not out to make people think like me. I might engage people in conversation about it, exchange ideas, or debate. In the process I may change my mind, or I might change someone's mind.

As an example, your belief in NAP isn't threatening to me. Neither is your belief in Anarcho Capitalism. Neither is your belief about 9/11. I don't care to change your mind about any of that stuff. I'm not an activist. I don't need for other people to be just like me. I'm happy to think like I think and let them think like they think. But if you say something I disagree with, I'll give you my opinion. And you're welcome to do with that whatever you want.

So you can't justify initiating aggression against someone's natural rights to extract information they may possess, either?

Where are these people who will attempt to justify that?

 

[jamil]

So you can't justify initiating aggression against someone's natural rights to extract information they may possess, either?

Where are these people who will attempt to justify that?

It depends. Do they pose a threat to me or my family or people I care about? This has all been covered.

 

[ATM]

It depends. Do they pose a threat to me or my family or people I care about? This has all been covered.

Let's just say they are being held for investigation with no actual charges. They may possess information regarding some threat.

You are allowed to interact with them. Go.

 

[jamil]

Let's just say they are being held for investigation with no actual charges. They may possess information regarding some threat.

You are allowed to interact with them. Go.

Why?

 

[ATM]

Why?

Because you said it depends and that it has all been covered. I haven't seen it covered, so I have no idea what you're referencing.

 

[jamil]

Because you said it depends and that it has all been covered. I haven't seen it covered, so I have no idea what you're referencing.

Go back and read what I said about cost, value, and efficacy. Then fill in the blanks necessary to evaluate all those.

 

[ATM]

Go back and read what I said about cost, value, and efficacy. Then fill in the blanks necessary to evaluate all those.

I'm talking Liberty, not your personal economics of practicality. Justify extracting info or don't.

 

[Woobie]

If you must rephrase my position to defeat it, you likely realize that you can't win.

Which of us is being deceptive?

Is that or is that not an accurate summary of statements you have made in this thread?

 

[Woobie]

It's simple. But the only disconnect is your different perspectives. It's like I said. It's about cost and efficacy. And I'll ad another. Value. He places a higher value on the lives of the innocent, and therefore, on the information that could save them, than he does on the lives of the people doing harm and have knowledge of future harm. To Woobie, the the moral cost is higher for not trying to get information to save innocent people, than it is to use EIT on Terrorists. That your values and estimations of cost and efficacy might be different does not make either of you more moral or better than the other.

If he judges you by his values, he might think you're immoral for not placing a higher value on innocent people. If you judge him by your values, you might think he's immoral for extracting that information. So right now, we're looking at this and trying to discover the real facts and we're making judgements about other people's values. I think it's fair to draw lines and have boundaries, but I think it's unfair, as long as we're operating in a legitimate, reasonable, linear area, to hold someone else to your exact values.

That is mostly accurate. The only correction I would make is that some simultaneously believe things that lie at opposite ends of that spectrum, yet nothing in between.

Also, because you describe 3 variables, I would say that would make this less linear, and more some 3 dimensional shape. Maybe it's planar and looks linear from a certain aspect.

 

[ATM]

Is that or is that not an accurate summary of statements you have made in this thread?

It was not. Are you ready to justify using force to extract info?

 

[Woobie]

I'm talking Liberty, not your personal economics of practicality. Justify extracting info or don't.

Justify sitting idly by and watching people die.

Whether you like Jamil's economics or not; whether you like my values or not, you play in the same game. You just won't admit it to yourself. At some point, you will sacrifice the Liberty of another for your own security. Liberty is meaningless to those under constant threat of violence from a superior force. Security means nothing to the prisoner.

 

[Woobie]

It was not. Are you ready to justify using force to extract info?

You said you would commit violence to protect your family. Didn't you?