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

[ATM]

Ah. A scenario. Okay. So, since you think it's up to you to stop me, I assume we're living in the province of Anarchtopia...

No, Indiana will suffice. I decide to intervene because you are victimizing a third party and it escalates because we both believe we're justified. Where does it end?

 

[ATM]

He hid a bomb. It's a big house.

Charge him with his crime.

 

[Woobie]

ATM would likely do whatever he is willing to pay the just consequences for doing to attempt to gain the information he desires.

Then, he would pay those consequences, not consider himself immune.

So this convoluted sentence does not imply you would do whatever you would have to do, including torture if necessary, to gain the knowledge to save your loved one's life?

 

[jamil]

No, Indiana will suffice. I decide to intervene because you are victimizing a third party and it escalates because we both believe we're justified. Where does it end?

Well, if it's Indiana then probably someone else is handling the torture. I'm just a citizen. But whateves.

I wouldn't interrogate someone unless they've threatened me or my family or people I care about. I told you. This mother****er put a time bomb in my big ass house (hey, this a scenario, and I get to have a big ass house). Anyway, the bomb is going to blow unless I can find it and disarm it. My dog is old and his smeller doesn't work so well anymore. No chance to find it unless the ******* talks. So are you going to help me get it out of this aggressor or not?

 

[ATM]

So this convoluted sentence does not imply you would do whatever you would have to do, including torture if necessary, to gain the knowledge to save his loved one's life?

Not at all. It says I would likely do whatever I am willing to pay the just consequences for doing.

That could be asking politely, with no consequences, to snapping off fingers and toes, which should carry higher consequences.
I left it rather open without attempting to justify any possible actions I might take in that moment.

Do you see how this keeps coming back to justification? It all hinges on that.

 

[jamil]

Charge him with his crime.

That doesn't help my house. And I seem to have misplaced a kid. It's a big ass house. I'd kinda like to keep the kid.

 

[Woobie]

Not at all. It says I would likely do whatever I am willing to pay the just consequences for doing.

That could be asking politely, with no consequences, to snapping off fingers and toes, which should carry higher consequences.
I left it rather open without attempting to justify any possible actions I might take in that moment.

Do you see how this keeps coming back to justification? It all hinges on that.

So what is your justification for letting a loved one die when you simply had to get someone else's face wet?

And being noncommital is intellectually dishonest. You can say "I don't know, it's hard to say what I would do in that situation." You can say "Under no circumstances would I do anything but politely act." Or you can say you would do whatever it takes. But leaving your decision open ended pending my justification is intellectually dishonest.

But if you were to snap off a toe, who would enforce the consequences of your actions?

 

[ATM]

Well, if it's Indiana then probably someone else is handling the torture. I'm just a citizen. But whateves.

Not someone else, you. If you can vest immunity in someone else it means you have immunity to vest, right? Why are you, or anyone else, justified to torture?

I wouldn't interrogate someone unless they've threatened me or my family or people I care about. I told you. This mother****er put a time bomb in my big ass house (hey, this a scenario, and I get to have a big ass house). Anyway, the bomb is going to blow unless I can find it and disarm it. My dog is old and his smeller doesn't work so well anymore. No chance to find it unless the ******* talks. So are you going to help me get it out of this aggressor or not?

No, but I might shoot you if you don't stop waterboarding him.

 

[jamil]

Not someone else, you. If you can vest immunity in someone else it means you have immunity to vest, right? Why are you, or anyone else, justified to torture?



No, but I might shoot you if you don't stop waterboarding him.

He initiate the force. And I don't waterboard. I force lighteninged his ass.

 

[ATM]

That doesn't help my house. And I seem to have misplaced a kid. It's a big ass house. I'd kinda like to keep the kid.

Charge him with bombing the house or murdering the kid if that's what happens as a result of his actions. If you torture him, you'll have your own consequences to face because that's also wrong. Might be worth those consequences, but still wrong.

 

[Woobie]

Charge him with bombing the house or murdering the kid if that's what happens as a result of his actions. If you torture him, you'll have your own consequences to face because that's also wrong. Might be worth those consequences, but still wrong.

As wrong as letting his kid die?

 

[ATM]

So what is your justification for letting a loved one die when you simply had to get someone else's face wet?

Your ridiculous assumption aside, I don't need justification if someone else murders a loved one. That's on the murderer, right?

But seriously, would you defend yourself from me when I defend your torture victim from you?

blah blah

Stay on task.

 

[ATM]

As wrong as letting his kid die?

I made no attempt to compare the two wrongs. Do you now admit that they are both wrong and both deserving of consequences?

 

[Woobie]

Your ridiculous assumption aside, I don't need justification if someone else murders a loved one. That's on the murderer, right?

But seriously, would you defend yourself from me when I defend your torture victim from you?



Stay on task.

Excuse me? You said that all authority comes from God. But through whom? I still want to hear you say it. Then we will play your game.

 

[ATM]

He initiate the force. And I don't waterboard. I force lighteninged his ass.

His act is over if you have him subdued enough to begin torturing him. The consequences of his action may continue to play out, but he is no longer the active threat.

 

[Woobie]

I made no attempt to compare the two wrongs. Do you now admit that they are both wrong and both deserving of consequences?

I don't know why you would infer that. But I would be glad to expound. That is of course, if you can muster some respect.

 

[foszoe]

And who would determine the consequences?

God

 

[ATM]

Excuse me? You said that all authority comes from God. But through whom? I still want to hear you say it. Then we will play your game.

Through me in this scenario. I am defending your victim and threatening to stop you. Will you defend against me?

 

[Woobie]

His act is over if you have him subdued enough to begin torturing him. The consequences of his action may continue to play out, but he is no longer the active threat.

That is a big mistake. His act of aggression is playing out. In fact, the bomb still ticks. If anything, he has yet to complete his attack. He is the person drawing the gun.

 

[ATM]

I don't know why you would infer that. But I would be glad to expound. That is of course, if you can muster some respect.

I respect you, but not your position. Any problem with that? Shall we continue? Drop it if you like.