Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to BenWilson,
Far more likely is that the dirty bomb goes off before intelligence ever knows about it. Or the terrorist dies in a shootout as the FBI bust into his lair. Or lies about where the bomb is, wasting valuable time. Or they torture some guy who doesn’t actually know anything. Or they torture ten people and get ten different answers. Or they torture ten people, and it turns out there was no dirty bomb after all (most likely of all).
Torture proponents are rather like some economists: they falsely assume perfect knowledge of everything except the one piece of information you need. You know what’s happening, you know who’s behind it, you know your suspect is part of it, you know when it’s going to happen, you know the general vicinity…all you need is to be told which wire to cut.
Real-life terrorists are rarely that generous with information, and if they are, you’ve usually a) got enough to stop them anyway, or b) got so little that even that one-crucial-piece won’t get you anywhere in time to stop anything.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to George Darroch,
I'm confused. Is it okay to torture students associations, or not?
Only if they steal your speedboat.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Sacha,
You don't need a rights-based argument to be against torture.
No, but it helps, and I have a lot of admiration for people who do have the patience to formalize ethical arguments. I usually resort to "hurting people bad!", which is somewhat less convincing.
-
OnPoint: Transcription of new Rick Perry…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Would it be quicker and less painful if I stuck a brick in a pair of pantihose, came round your house and you gave that wall the day off?
That's really very thoughtful of you.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
You're a penguin.
I thought that on the internet, no-one knew that?
-
The next time I need to explain the Gish Gallop to someone, this thread is going to be a wonderful resource.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Surely we have the right not to be injected with drugs which aren't for our benefit?
Depends on the side-effects. A drug which has no particular after-effects and is very low-risk for serious side effects is a lot harder to argue against than a drug which will kill one person in a hundred (or a thousand). Might also fall under the right to silence - do people have a fundamental right to not be forced to incriminate themselves? Does incriminating yourself fall under the definition of "harm", as in, the state has a right to question but not to harm you?
I'm not sure I can answer it, but I think that's because I have difficulty dealing with pure hypotheticals - I'll always want to think about the real-world effects, which muddy the waters considerably.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Steve Parks,
It works and they get the location of the bomb and defuse it.
And this is the problem with your hypothetical: torture doesn't work. If the suspect is guilty, he will hold out as long as possible and/or give you misinformation. Or he'll just tell you what he thinks you want to hear. If he's innocent...well.
It's always possible to come up with very very specific hypothetical situations where torture might Save The World, but in the real world it is not a reliable interrogation technique and its inclusion as a legitimate tool of government means that, inevitably, innocent people will be tortured, people will be tortured to no good purpose, and once, maybe, when all the stars align and you capture a clearly guilty man who has extraordinarily low pain tolerances and really not that much dedication to his cause, you might get the information you need in time to do something about it.
That's why torture is always illegitimate: it's a power no state should hold, because they will misuse it and it will be to no good end. The only reliable use of torture is to, well, torture people.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Paul Campbell,
There’s a difference between knocking a bowling ball out of the park and knocking it into the crowd
Personally, I would pay to see a cricketer knock a bowling ball into the crowd.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
Really? Utterly different prose style and MOs. But I suppose I had to interact directly with both of them.
Same tone of general trollery, though, at least to the uncritical eye. I was under a similar impression.