Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Forgive me for being dense. Why exactly do we have no choice?

Wolf,

It's hyperbole.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What does this have to do with my post? I was referring to effective interrogation technique.

Brant,

There's an error common to our subcommunity. I call it the one-size-fits-all error. We make an assumption that just because all humans have to breathe, thus need oxygen, that all humans will act and react the same way in different situations, especially where moral principles are concerned.

Making a blanket claim that waterboarding is not an effective interrogation technique, with the universal "ALL humans" being implied, is akin to the climate change people saying man-made climate change is settled science and already proven.

Your claim about waterboarding is an opinion, not settled military science. There are enough credible behavior experts on both sides of this issue who are at odds to back that statement up.

Now about the monsters. I'm not an expert, but I have a feeling waterboarding would work wonderfully on many of them (not ALL of them, but many of them). They are cowards who only work well in group. In my experience in life, bullies tend to give it up when they themselves get a little of what they dish out.

Also, I've read in several places that in their training, they are told they are pre-forgiven if they give up hard facts under duress. They are trained to endure waterboarding (among other techniques) and trained to feel good about themselves if they can't stand it and give up critical information.

I'm against things like waterboarding, but not on those murderous assholes. I even feel it would work on them although, the way I get after seeing a video like the one they made in the slaughterhouse, that's not a requirement for doing it to them.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You're not a master of war, but you play one on OL.

--Brant

I am a Weapon Smith.  My problems with asthma kept me out of combat, so I used to build weapons of mass destruction.  I think Neutron Bombs are nifty.

If I did not have asthma  I would have become a Warrior. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm against things like waterboarding, but not on those murderous assholes. I even feel it would work on them although, the way I get after seeing a video like the one they made in the slaughterhouse, that's not a requirement for doing it to them.

I want to add to this.

If these backward savages were in their own country doing this to their own people and there was no bleed-over to where I live, I would not hold the same opinion. I would think it is a shame for the innocent people born there and keep an eye on them should they want to expand, but it's their failed culture they would be wallowing in. I might say help the innocents where we can.

However, these backward savages use modern technology and modern communications assets, all from the West and all of which they would not have the capacity or will to devise in a million years, and they dip into a recruitment pool from the West with storytelling (the only thing they do well), to do what? To stage terrorist attacks on the West. And just to make sure everybody understands them and their intent, they put out videos like that slaughterhouse video.

If these monsters stayed at home, kinda like North Korea, I would say leave them alone. But since they keep coming at us, I say take them out. And do it hard.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

There's an error common to our subcommunity. I call it the one-size-fits-all error. We make an assumption that just because all humans have to breathe, thus need oxygen, that all humans will act and react the same way in different situations, especially where moral principles are concerned.

Making a blanket claim that waterboarding is not an effective interrogation technique, with the universal "ALL humans" being implied, is akin to the climate change people saying man-made climate change is settled science and already proven.

Your claim about waterboarding is an opinion, not settled military science. There are enough credible behavior experts on both sides of this issue who are at odds to back that statement up.

Now about the monsters. I'm not an expert, but I have a feeling waterboarding would work wonderfully on many of them (not ALL of them, but many of them). They are cowards who only work well in group. In my experience in life, bullies tend to give it up when they themselves get a little of what they dish out.

Also, I've read in several places that in their training, they are told they are pre-forgiven if they give up hard facts under duress. They are trained to endure waterboarding (among other techniques) and trained to feel good about themselves if they can't stand it and give up critical information.

I'm against things like waterboarding, but not on those murderous assholes. I even feel it would work on them although, the way I get after seeing a video like the one they made in the slaughterhouse, that's not a requirement for doing it to them.

Michael

So, it's not torture yes or no--it's waterboarding?

Under the rubric of "torture" you can do anything.

Under a list of acceptable interrogation techniques you might be able to put "waterboarding"--not "torture."

Are you saying it's okay to torture the butchers in the video because they're deserving? Then you want payback first, information, maybe, second. Afterall, they've dehumanized themselves. True, I'd have no problem killing them.

--Brant

 

[Brant Gaede]

43 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am a Weapon Smith.  My problems with asthma kept me out of combat, so I used to build weapons of mass destruction.  I think Neutron Bombs are nifty.

If I did not have asthma  I would have become a Warrior. 

You didn't have to fight to know what you're talking about. It might have helped.

--Brant

faint possibility

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

There's an error common to our subcommunity. I call it the one-size-fits-all error. We make an assumption that just because all humans have to breathe, thus need oxygen, that all humans will act and react the same way in different situations, especially where moral principles are concerned.

Making a blanket claim that waterboarding is not an effective interrogation technique, with the universal "ALL humans" being implied, is akin to the climate change people saying man-made climate change is settled science and already proven.

Your claim about waterboarding is an opinion, not settled military science. There are enough credible behavior experts on both sides of this issue who are at odds to back that statement up.

Now about the monsters. I'm not an expert, but I have a feeling waterboarding would work wonderfully on many of them (not ALL of them, but many of them). They are cowards who only work well in group. In my experience in life, bullies tend to give it up when they themselves get a little of what they dish out.

Also, I've read in several places that in their training, they are told they are pre-forgiven if they give up hard facts under duress. They are trained to endure waterboarding (among other techniques) and trained to feel good about themselves if they can't stand it and give up critical information.

I'm against things like waterboarding, but not on those murderous assholes. I even feel it would work on them although, the way I get after seeing a video like the one they made in the slaughterhouse, that's not a requirement for doing it to them.

Michael

I had made no specific claim about waterboarding. You must have been replying to someone else when replying to me using that horrible video as some kind of refutation--of what?

--Brant

I use words

[BaalChatzaf]

26 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

You didn't have to fight to know what you're talking about. It might have helped.

--Brant

faint possibility

No I did not fight.  I just busted my ass and sweated a lot to learn the science to be a Weapon Smith.  It did not come easy and it did not come for free.

If I cannot be a Warrior then I will provide tools for the Warriors.  We all do our bit for King and Country.   

Remember, no Knight however brave or valorous  made his own armor, lance and sword.

[anthony]

There is no dealing with "faith and force" except to grant their adherents the 'godly punishment' their belief requires and comprehends. The tricky part is how to stay true to your own standards of morality while doing it. Bide your time and then hit 'em hard at their core, and get out. Repeat when essential. "Shows" of force, are just that - for second hand show.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

40 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

You must have been replying to someone else when replying to me using that horrible video as some kind of refutation--of what?

Brant,

You're reading it through a lens far different than what I intended.

I'm not refuting anything except for that one comment about your claim that waterboarding does not work for interrogation. And I only did that because you mentioned it again.

By posting a link to the slaughterhouse video, I'm illustrating a context where rights do not apply. Where such questions are beside the point.

Once we drag that evil trash into a civilized manner of walking among other humans, we can reopen the problems of defining their rights, what torture is and so on. The way they exist now makes no moral claims on any of their enemies. Not on you. Not on me. Not on the government of any civilized country.

Since I'm a reasonable person, I say eliminate that problem as quickly and objectively as possible before it grows. Or we can do it President Obama's way... How's that working?

Your concerns have civilization and reason as the background to set the standards of morality and fighting procedures. Those monsters are not part of that world, that context, that civilization, that reason. They need to go. Once they are either integrated with the rest of the human race on some basic level where their volition and understanding of life are similar enough to ours that they no longer pose a threat, or they are no longer walking the earth (which I don't mind), then we can get back to a whole list of "shoulds."

Is that a double standard? It certainly is. The ISIS people have taken themselves out of the fundamental standard of civilization of the rest of the world (which is general non-violent peace for everyday living), so we need a new standard for them.

(Like I said, the word "subhuman" comes to mind. Thus one standard for the humans and another for the subhumans, kinda like they do in a different manner.)

Bombing, killing and waterboarding them (when deemed fit by the ones doing the fighting) are a good start...

btw - No sooner did I finish writing this stuff when I saw this (from Vocativ):

ISIS Supporters Rush To Celebrate NYC Explosion
"We cause you pain inside your house," one ISIS supporter bragged online

I don't know about you, but I'm no longer interested in the musical program to display Nero's fiddling talents.

Michael

 

EDIT: I just checked to make sure and saw your quote as this:

On 9/16/2016 at 8:43 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Torture is a stupid interrogation technique.

I must have misunderstood it. I could have sworn you talked about waterboarding being ineffective...

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

You're reading it through a lens far different than what I intended.

I'm not refuting anything except for that one comment about your claim that waterboarding does not work for interrogation. And I only did that because you mentioned it again.

By posting a link to the slaughterhouse video, I'm illustrating a context where rights do not apply. Where such questions are beside the point.

Once we drag that evil trash into a civilized manner of walking among other humans, we can reopen the problems of defining their rights, what torture is and so on. The way they exist now makes no moral claims on any of their enemies. Not on you. Not on me. Not on the government of any civilized country.

Since I'm a reasonable person, I say eliminate that problem as quickly and objectively as possible before it grows. Or we can do it President Obama's way... How's that working?

Your concerns have civilization and reason as the background to set the standards of morality and fighting procedures. Those monsters are not part of that world, that context, that civilization, that reason. They need to go. Once they are either integrated with the rest of the human race on some basic level where their volition and understanding of life are similar enough to ours that they no longer pose a threat, or they are no longer walking the earth (which I don't mind), then we can get back to a whole list of "shoulds."

Is that a double standard? It certainly is. The ISIS people have taken themselves out of the fundamental standard of civilization of the rest of the world (which is general non-violent peace for everyday living), so we need a new standard for them.

(Like I said, the word "subhuman" comes to mind. Thus one standard for the humans and another for the subhumans, kinda like they do in a different manner.)

Bombing, killing and waterboarding them (when deemed fit by the ones doing the fighting) are a good start...

btw - No sooner did I finish writing this stuff when I saw this (from Vocativ):

ISIS Supporters Rush To Celebrate NYC Explosion
"We cause you pain inside your house," one ISIS supporter bragged online

I don't know about you, but I'm no longer interested in the musical program to display Nero's fiddling talents.

Michael

 

EDIT: I just checked to make sure and saw your quote as this:

I must have misunderstood it. I could have sworn you talked about waterboarding being ineffective...

I didn't say that. And "stupid" doesn't mean "ineffective" anyway. Yeah, they'll talk, but what will they say? Regardless, the video is besides the point--irrelevant. You might have to "torture" your friend to get your info. A torturer in Argentina didn't stop until he was told to torture someone he knew and it broke down the psychological barrier he had built between himself and his victims--the kind of barrier that lets you go home at night and love your wife and children and listen to music and watch TV, just like normal folk, and sleep at night, with tomorrow just another day at the office if it isn't for go-to-church Sunday and pray to your savior Jesus Christ (if not with all of your might).

And: the State's "need" to torture people comes right out of its need to wage wars. That's the kind of state our State is in. In current times it was the foreign policy stupidities that led to the First Gulf War. Vietnam was more anti-communist inertia, plus the inevitable dumbassedness, with oil as a whole new ball game: anti-commie to pro-oil. Whee! Shoot 'em up!

Now, we can talk about torture for the sake of torture or general intimidation--that was the purpose of that video--or torture as an interrogation technique. There is no expert here on OL to inform us about that in detail, including me, which leaves us with moral issues only. This ignorance leaves us with the logical conclusion of, "Torture? Yeah, maybe." (Let Bob do it; his asthma shouldn't be a hindrance.)

--Brant

Girl Scouts for torture (if they knew, but they don't)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Yeah, they'll talk, but what will they say?

Brant,

I believe that depends on the competence of those doing the torturing. What do the government agents want? And how skilled are they in detecting deception?

Anyway, I don't condone this as normal policy. I do condone it against proven monsters.

That's not standard O-Land morality, but I'm not standard O-Land material.

Michael

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I believe that depends on the competence of those doing the torturing. What do the government agents want? And how skilled are they in detecting deception?

Anyway, I don't condone this as normal policy. I do condone it against proven monsters.

That's not standard O-Land morality, but I'm not standard O-Land material.

Michael

Monsters or not is irrelevant respecting getting information. If you aren't going to torture the non-monsters why the monsters? Because they deserve it? How about for practice? (After you use them up shoot them.)

--Brant

[Mark]

You can read about torture in theory and in practice ad nauseam in the following and the links therein:
Torture and Intrinsicism
If anyone here thinks he will be the one who determines who and who isn’t a monster, I got news for him, he won’t.

Trump is very wrong on this issue.  He backtracked only because, as he said, torture is against the law (and he wants to get the law changed).  Fortunately, in this case, he will have Congress to contend with.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

38 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you aren't going to torture the non-monsters why the monsters?

Brant,

That's easy. The non-monsters have rights I recognize. 

The monsters don't. 

In considering them (the monsters), it's only a matter of what works and what doesn't. Not what's right or wrong.

If you are in doubt about what I mean, rewatch the video.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: That's easy. The non-monsters have rights I recognize. The monsters don't. end quote

They are replaying a TV show about the case of that little girl who was murdered. Jon Benet Ramsey? The local police were so sure the parents did it. They were SO sure they hid and falsified evidence, letting the real monster go free. To this day, many of the still living, local police deny any wrong doing, but they are also monsters too just like her killer. The contemporary DNA analyses points to a Hispanic man as her torturer and killer. I hope they can solve it after all these years.

*Recognize* can be taken as sensory input or as a means of imputing rights into a person and then acting in a corresponding fashion. It would be great if the criminals looked a certain way. I have joked how people who wore a cocaine earring, or criminal motorcycle gangs do the police a big favor by showing their “true colors.” It aids in identifying and searching for evidence. And it aids in gaining other information. So, you’re a Son of Anarchy? OK, dirt bag, snitch, or you’re going into Cell block D with the Hell’s Angels and the Warlocks who have a bounty on your head.  

Unfortunately, when people are demonized and treated as a *class,* then political and practical morality can lose its underpinnings, like an old west posse . . . . or like Admiral Nimitz saying the only good Jap is a Jap who has been dead a good while. Fast forward to the 21^st Century and a statement condemning a class of people is embarrassing. I do agree with Ayn that collateral damage is morally right in certain circumstances even if the innocents dying are blameless for an act of war. . . like powerless citizens who had no say in the government they have, and young people. Que sara, sara. I think we are better off than in 1939, when there were Conquering Japs, Mussolini, and Nazis but the bad guys keep popping up, like that boardwalk game, “Whack a Mole.

It’s Bike week in Ocean City Maryland. This year I think there are more mean, low class bikers and fewer professional guys on a weekend adventure.  Last year the bikers were better tippers than the classic car guys, according to a waiter I know. This year I have seen two instances of bad conduct on the part of the bikers. The state police and county sheriffs are all over the place.

Peter    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

It would be great if the criminals looked a certain way.

Peter,

You mean like if they make videos of themselves slitting people's throats and gloating about it?

Those are the people I'm talking about.

I have decided to leave the land of ideology when it becomes so murky that no distinction can be made between those people and normal criminals where things like DNA analysis is required.

I'll go with common sense on those cases for now. If an individual or group of individuals make videos where they execute large numbers of people in gruesome manners, then use it as a recruiting tool for terrorism, they are monsters. I'll not bother about DNA analysis to make that categorization.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, I saw William mention in the Lepers of Objectivism thread where I objected to Yaron Brook's ideas about what to do with terrorists caught on the battlefield (see here). I have to admit, I still don't know what "forfeit one's right to exist" means. Brook thinks rights are involved. He also thinks it is morally obligatory to use torture when American lives are at stake. 

That is such a twisting of principles, I can't even follow the rationalizations. Why? I can't see my way to morality with subhuman butchers. They attack. We kill them. End of story. No moral lesson is involved. There is no greater meaning or big picture with them. They set the terms with their actions. We didn't.

Torture them or don't torture them? Frankly, I don't believe it's a moral issue. 

If our side catches one of these butchers during hostilities, I'm fine leaving it entirely up to the discretion of those who hold him or her about what interrogation methods to employ. They have the situation right in front of them, not me. I trust the judgment of those who are risking their lives fighting to defend me against terrorists far more than I trust a moral equivalency from afar that establishes morality where none is possible except to turn us into sacrificial animals and sitting ducks.

I am not a fan of the morality of self-sacrifice.

In my mind, I am more restrictive about civilized enemies. Not savages like the ISIS folks, though.

Note, not all ISIS folks are brutal savages. Some are confused young people. I'm not for allowing torture to be used on those. But I'm fine letting those who fight on our side determine who these confused young people are. And I'm far more inclined to grant leniency to our folks than to those particular enemies. For example, if our side makes a mistake with an ISIS member during hostilities and treats a confused young person as a butcher, oh well. No big deal. That poor fool was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Oops... Sad but oops... Try not to do it again and move on...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

since they keep coming at us, I say take them out. And do it hard.

Michael

I went dense again. How exactly would this be achieved? We have maybe a million Muslims of fighting age in the U.S., some of them from Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, wolfdevoon said:

We have maybe a million Muslims of fighting age...

Wolf,

So?

I'm not talking about potentials.

In my mind, I have been quite specific about the people I am referencing. Was I unclear?

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not talking about potentials.

In my mind, I have been quite specific about the people I am referencing. Was I unclear?

Michael

You were clear, Michael. I guess I draw a distinction between foreign affairs and domestic security, the latter raising constitutional questions.

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

That's easy. The non-monsters have rights I recognize. 

The monsters don't. 

In considering them (the monsters), it's only a matter of what works and what doesn't. Not what's right or wrong.

If you are in doubt about what I mean, rewatch the video.

Michael

Why are you going to torture the monsters?

Information?

Non-monsters who fight us?

Information?

Either both groups are eligible for torture or neither.

Torture for the sake of torture?

Who's gonna do that?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why are you going to torture the monsters?

Information?

Brant,

That, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

I guess I draw a distinction between foreign affairs and domestic security, the latter raising constitutional questions.

Wolf,

So do I.

Foreign monsters who make videos of gruesome executions and use them as recruiting tools on US assets to wage war against the US are fair game in my world. The constitution does not cover them except for the word "Enemies" (for instance, as given in Article III, Section 3).

American citizens who watch those videos have all the rights of American citizens under the constitution until they commit treason (once again, as given in Article III, Section 3). Then they get to experience the punishment part.

I'm perfectly fine with those constitutional distinctions.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Either both groups are eligible for torture or neither.

Brant,

Why?

Because ideology says it is necessary to not make distinctions?

If that is the case, this is where I am at odds with ideology. I look at the monsters and say, "Good God! They are chopping people's heads off, drowning them in cages, butchering them in a slaughterhouse like cattle, burning them alive and so on." The ideology you seem to be talking about says no matter, that is not a fundamental principle. The ideological principle is fundamental.

In other words, I cannot use my own mind to look at reality first hand and make judgments of good and evil and what to do about it. I have to accept brainwashing through the words of another to blind myself to what I see and hogtie my arms to keep them from acting.

Fuck that.

I don't use ideology that way.

I was serious when I said re torture I was in favor of a double standard, one for the savage monsters and one for the civilized humans.

I don't see that as a double standard at all since my fundamental principles go deeper into human nature, but I can see where others would.

Michael