Not sure how a 1% to 2% gain is at all newsworthy.

Even if it worked and it was moral if employed under limited circumstances it should still be illegal because in practice it would be used in the way it is actually used right now in reality. Interrogators would want names and the tortured people would give them names. Those people would end up tortured and would name other people. Torturors get medals, promotions, bonuses and their funding gets increased. For instance they might get promoted to be Director of the CIA.

Pairing a significant reward to providing accurate intel before negative reinforcement stuff commences would also be advisable as a way to get what you need ASAP IMO.
Yeah decent time for a disclaimer from me that I'm discussing efficacy only because it's the part I find interesting ATM, NOT because I'm necessarily pro-torture or disregard the morality issues as being trivial or something.

I don't deny this, could very well be the case.

Just had issue with "torture doesn't work" as a general truth to be accepted. Think the same reasons I buckle my seatbelt (...to get the annoying chimes to stop!) exemplify how torture could work in certain intel-gathering contexts.

Is this a regular guitar pick or the Pick of Destiny?

Great discussion we've got going here. You've got to love the old, "I feel like torture must work, especially my fool-proof methods, therefore it must work. **** your research/statistics!"

Then again, that's basically the 2018 conservative position on a bunch of issues...

[QUOTE=Kevin J;53816341] Uh, cuz then you're going to torture them more?

Seems pretty likely to work in those circumstances.

See above; pretty sure not too many people think it doesn't work in those specific circumstances.

I mean torturing a terrorist to save lives is obviously okay in the limited situations in which it would be effective.

The other situations were bad because they were ineffective. Those people got bad "evidence", wasting American time and resources, and opened America up to embarrassment to boot..

I mean I'm talking about specific contexts where my understanding of operant conditioning suggests we'd see results that'd disprove blanket "Torture doesn't work" statements.

Look at my guitar pick example and plug in more realistic circumstances that fit my conditions then tell me why or how it would yield results no more desirable than merely requesting the info with a single verbal prompt or whatever the control scenario would look like.

Anyway that's it for me on the subject, bowing out and back to lurking.

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/sta...44760409829376

(Rando public corruption update.)

If you want to cherry pick the one situation where torture could work to try and disprove the evidence that torture, in fact, doesn't work go ahead. It will be just like an episode of 24!

In the real world where you don't know any of the things you are presupposing torture doesn't work, do you agree with that?

If this is mostly correct, I'm going to be surprised if this doesn't get more attention. Of course I need the disclaimer here about who knows WTF is going to be a big story these days with all the **** these guys do. This seems like a totally unacceptable unfolding of events for a women who confidentially approaches a lawyer with her story of assault/sexual assault, like a nightmare. Who knows, in NYC a woman in this situation might even specifically ask, "You're not going to do anything crazy, like tell a tabloid or, heaven forbid, some massive waterhead ****wind like Donald Trump are you?"

Unrelated, what is this thing? It's perfect, Pence as Ghoul. I'm guessing it's from a movie but I can't remember ever seeing it:

So we're talking about at least a parlay and maybe a round robin.

a). The target must possess the info needed

b). The info must be immediately verifiable, and

c). The target is not capable of withstanding extreme torture

You can always find exceptions that can be morally rationalized from a subjective viewpoint. But unless a,b,c can all be verified as at least 1., I don't think the practice of torture even makes strategical sense. And I say this knowing full well DS will chime in with: If each criteria had a 90% chance of being true and it could save a major city from nuclear annihilation... In that case, make exceptions as was suggested above and pardon people. It's no reason to legalize torture imo.

The only specific contexts where it might be morally/logically correct were explained quite well by microbet and his take is good, so re-read that.

The control scenario is a skilled interrogator carrying out an interrogation without "enhanced techniques" aka torture. Look at the Senate report from a few years ago, this is a solved issue. Torture doesn't work as a means to gain information.

If you're pro torture, the only reason given the evidence we have is a desire to make other human beings suffer. No matter how evil they are, the United States must be better than that.

Someone explain this Cohen/Trump/Schneiderman thing to me, I don't get it

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...768425477?s=19

In what universe does "The American People" mean like 9% of Americans? Don't answer, it's obviously Trump's universe.

Even most Republican Trumpists do better off with Obamacare than with whatever the GOP has been trying to push, or worse, a straight up repeal alone. They just don't like the Obama part of the name, as proven when last year's idiots were saying they hate Obamacare but don't mind the Affordable Care Act.

It was such a massive error to let the GOP brand it Obamacare... There was so little, if any, push back from Democrats on that. They seemed to think it was going to be a good way to take a victory lap, and grossly underestimated the right wings hatred for Obama - which should have been obvious by the time Obamacare was being passed. I remember thinking that at the time, and avoided calling it that myself in arguments sometimes, but the Dems were just freaking clueless to that branding issue. Obama included.

It's from Cocoon.

If this schneiderman ordeal turns out to actually be tied to Cohen/Trump, it's more ludicrous than the reveal of Hannity as the third client.

I would say that threatening a school shooter with death in order to get the shooter to drop his weapon is perfectly acceptable.

Is there a moral difference between the above situation and threatening a suspect in custody that has planted a ticking explosive, with death?

One difference would be that the evidence of guilt in case A is much more apparent. While mistakes can still be made in case A, the error rate is much lower than case B.

Given the many cases of coerced confessions and confessions under duress all over the world, I would be very hesitant to test the limits of what counts as incontrovertible evidence in case B. Opening up to allow torture is way too likely to lead to abuse.

Thanks. I think I've actually seen that but don't remember that thing. Pence is 4500 years old and plays pinochle with Beetus Brimley.

Question: When is Trump most dangerous, when he gets what he wants and tries to gain as much money and power at the expense of the country or when the pressure is on and he's backed into a corner over his crimes and infractions?

There's definitely a happy medium to resistance, but I do struggle with the above question because it seems he'll be the most volatile and capable of scorching the Earth when he runs out of protective moves and faces destruction for himself or his family.

Should we really throw the book at him and watch him REALLY fight back by any means necessary, or do we pick our battles and ignore some big offenses?

And it's not just us, but the same goes for Mueller and other investigators. I wonder how much "ticking time bomb" consideration is given to the situation.

It's been said so many times but I want to get mine in once: Michael Cohen is the worst lawyer I've ever seen.

I am of the opinion that he is most dangerous when backed in to a corner simply for the fact that most people are more dangerous when backed in to a corner.

Take any dictator considered dangerous in the world. Say Kim. If there was a legitimate 50% chance of having him leave office in 3 years, there is no way you consider deposing him, right?

"We will not rest until the job is done!" he says, on day 476 of his Presidency.