Here comes an example of why not to vote for democrats. I am all for torturing this …. until he talks and gives up his counterparts in this plot. Obama and Hilliary handcuff our interrogators and limit their actions, calling some inhumane. Compared to decapitation by our enemies, we are not doing anything inhumane.
Well, that would be the WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? Also, you want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Bill Clinton was the same political affiliation as Obama, and he turned Bin Laden away when Syria offered him up years ago for attacking one of our naval ships. Maybe could have prevented 9-11, who knows?
You are clueless here. You don’t even know the basics, because Sudan is the nation rumored to have offered to turn him over in the most credible story. The fact checking groups, the national security advisor, the director of counterterrorism, and the 9/11 Commission all debunk you’re claim. In one case Clinton ordered the CIA to go after him, in another he ordered a strike and they missed by a few hours. There are at least 3 times plans were called off and it was revealed he was no longer there when the attack would have been carried out, and another when some intelligence officers claim he was, and others said the intelligence was not good.
Of course before Republicans rewrote history they were screaming that Clinton was just trying to “Wag the dog,” with his attacks because they were engaged in the Very Serious business of getting to the bottom of that blowjob. As usual with some posters here, this was a reference to a movie title, because anti-terrorism and national security issues should be based on bjs and fiction for one group of people.
However, when the CIA went to interrupt Bush on the longest vacation in presidential history, warning about imminent attacks in what the CIA official described as being designed to set off alarm bells, he told them they could go back and they had “covered their ass now.”
So yes, maybe 9/11 could have been stopped, by the guy who was actually president and ignored the threat. Also, during the transition when the counterterrorism staff told the administration terrorism, and specifically bin Laden was their biggest national security concern they Saif he was wrong, it was Iraq, aside from one noted idiot, Condoleezza Rice, who said it was Russia.
Maybe you are actually saying Republicans are so incompetent there was no chance we could get him once Clinton left and Bush took over, so it’s really Clinton’s fault?
September 21, 2016 at 7:55 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
I know the political affiliation of our Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
September 21, 2016 at 4:12 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
We know the political affiliation of our Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
September 19, 2016 at 5:07 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
10
I know the political affiliation of the Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? Also, you want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
maybe you should preface your duplicate post with “all these conservative bots are trying to censor my god given right to free speech!! i thought this was america, not china!” just like Yogi did
-confused
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You’d like us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Let me just explain it to you how this is likely being misrepresented.
Let’s say we have a sample of people tortured. The studies themselves say the issue is that tortured people will say anything to stop torture, even if they don’t have information.
So, what if only 3 guys have information and you have 100 terrorists.
97 guys give false information to stop the torture. You go check to verify these 97 leads are false and they are.
The 3 however, indefinitely gave the information due to being tortured (after all, if they will LIE to STOP torture this means they will do ANYTHING including give info they have, and yes, as a man, I will tell you now, if I were tortured I WOULD FOR A FACT eventually give information unless I had a motivation like my wife and kids.
Then they can say: See? 97% of the information we received was false!
But that 3% from the people in the inner circle had information regarding a nuclear strike.
Oh well, we shouldn’t torture 97 people to save thousands.
It does not make us by concept as bad as our enemies because we torture for this obvious reason:
THE REASON AND MOTIVATION for the torture.
Not all things are the same. Not all torture is the same.
They then say “Well, we have proof they will lie and say anything to stop torture, and 97% of all cases we confirm are false information. So we can say that torture doesn’t give reliable information and doesn’t work.”
They are leaving out the core details. Torture did work. It’s why the 97 lied, to stop the torture.
The other 3 told the truth to stop the torture. So 100% of torture works in getting people to do what torture’s purpose is: Give in, give up, whatever information they have even if they don’t have any. Fact checking false information is easy, and if we fact checked false information they would be more afraid of what would happen after false information by the by.
When it comes to these people, these terrorists, if you really believe that people out there in a war torn nation are not afraid of being tortured, they aren’t afraid to ally themselves with a group when they know they will be destroyed if they do, you’re a fool. I have actually heard people like you argue this creates more terrorists.
Both a ha, and a ha.
Religious zealotry only goes as far as a tangible in the now benefit. It is rare for a human to think the promise of “Heaven” for murder and rape is enough. This is why until this point Al Quieda has been a smaller force. ISIS has strength not because they are being promised virgins and after life wealth (like Bin Laden style terrorists who were weaker). ISIS is strong because they give women to rape, money to spend, and other luxury items. And for these people, they like it. People as a whole on the darker side of the spectrum love immediate gratification.
As soon as you give someone like that immediate consequence instead of instant gratification,
They ditch the ideal like cowards.
Torture will scare these people. Torture will work on these people.
And as for the ethics: As soon as someone is enough of a zealot to launch an attack on our country’s people (not military soldiers like a standard country does) they are definitely cowards worthy of torture, and we can explain that difference to our “enemies” and “allies” and I’m sure they will understand.
However, the more likely number is something like this:
We capture about a thousand terrorists. We only manage to get 3 high ranking officials.
We semi torture 1000, find that 997 have no information and lie. We end torture on those. We focus on the 3 high ranking officials, they eventually give information leading to a high security risk.
Then they can say:
Only .003% of torture has been found to lead to any information of value.
You need to start looking in depth into what these studies really say.
Instead, you find someone who you believe to be morally superior, you create a reason for them to be morally superior (ergo why you brought ethics of torture into it, and they teach that into you intentionally)
And then you block out everyone else who sounds offensive (like you do me) and block out all debate on the issue without saying how un christian it is (ironic you call people this the most here and yet you claim how much religious zealotry is a tool, but you’re using it for your purpose aren’t you?) you say how evil it is, and how people “ought to act” as you recently said in regards to how “we” don’t act like x y and z recently, and then you toss people like that to the side like a zealot.
This is what my parents fought against in the 60’s. You are that in current day.
You are not a savior, you are a servant to the tyrants. The sooner my generation sees this the better.
Bob – I think your argument may be faulty based on an invalid initial assumption you are using.
Can you please cite your source where 3 out of 100 people who are tortured provide useful information? After all, didn’t the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture find:
*The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees
*The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness
*The CIA’s operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies
*The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques
I’m wondering where you got your 3/100 statistic from because your argument would be moot if the effective torture rate was really 0/100.
or 3 out of 1,000 people, whichever. I just don’t see how you can make the assumption that “3 people out of 1,000 will tell the truth when tortured” when the most recent analysis of torture numbers and their effectiveness has indicated otherwise.
September 20, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Every bolded section you just wrote, I have already read.
I am taking guesses because the study as they presented it does not reveal this information I have mentioned. I gave examples of how information could be manipulated.
And, I might add, these are the same people who said only three people were tortured. So how did this study have a large sample to compare?
We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point.
And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.
“The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness”
Again, if they had a 95% ratio of false information, this would make sense, since the majority of terrorists do not have information. Only the high ranking ones do. The point in my numbers were not that the numbers were tested. My point is that logic dictates not all terrorists have high ranking information. Do you honestly believe that more than 5% of terrorists know the inner workings? You’re going to have to prove that.
“The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees”
Again, I have read this, and the study gives no effective means to proof on this.
I am pointing out an important concept, one that my question above highlights.
When torturing the majority of information you get will be false, whether because it takes a while to get good information, or because you’re talking to the wrong person.
In all likelihood, you will have an extremely low percentage of accurate information, but that information will be vital and will be the only way to potentially stop a 9/11. So the question is:
Are these terrorists not being tortured (and the concept) worth more than hundreds of thousands of lives when we consider world wide terrorist attacks and murders that aren’t defined as terrorism over now average of nearly 2 attacks a day for the last 30 years from Islamist terrorists?
There are always real ratios to consider, and what you put above does not consider those ratios.
September 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
It is about time that we stop freezing up on taking action due to PC concepts of moral high ground.
I have grown extremely sick of it.
These people are murdering children, decapitating them and putting them on spikes, Saddam himself actually killed more people than ISIS ever did, and somehow the public has forgotten this as well.
Rape, murder, etc. Child rapists (and all the terrorists in this faction are child rapists) do not deserve special protection from torture, which would in affect finally give them something to be afraid of the next time they think about putting their pecker into a girl aged 5-10, instead of thinking I’ll just sit in Gitmo and be just fine where the government can’t touch me and will in fact protect me.
If you believe that the concept of torture is more important than giving a viable deterrent to would be child rapists en mass, you have the problem of morality here, as well as Planet.
I have had it to high heaven with millennials leaving out this important section. The men are murdered, the women and children are taken as sex slaves to have more terrorist children.
And you focus more on the torture of these people, and many liberals even claim that more people will become child raping lunatics if we take this on. NO! Many more children will be raped by lunatics if we don’t take this on!
Torturing a child raping lunatic who might have information to save GOOD and INNOCENT PEOPLE is the priority! Not making sure a child raping lunatic is treated fairly.
These are NOT some innocent people who are being mistreated. Every type of torture they could receive they FULLY deserve.
And don’t give me that crap line about the “what about the innocent ones”. It is easy to make sure we have confirmation protocols for torture regarding terrorist activities that are strict.
September 20, 2016 at 3:47 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I should clarify on this, initially these were the same people who supported the comment that only 3 detainees were known to have been tortured. Is the study regarding the three? I have not read the study in a while, you should source quote it so I can re go over it. As I recall, there was a very small sample that they referenced and they tried to say the torture was not related to information given in a way that was not believable. That in itself is not a study on torture. That was a bogus investigation that tried to say that the torture we did do didn’t give any good results.
In order to have studied this on a large basis they would need to do a lot more.
September 20, 2016 at 3:48 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Confused, information can be manipulated, so instead of believing the torture report, a huge amount of literature from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and various other wars we should seriously consider Bob’s fake information and fantasy scenarios, just like we are supposed to do with how economic data, retirement plan, etc. God, what a joke.
September 20, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
So let me give you an example:
In college they teach false rape claims statistics. Did you take any courses that taught this?
A reporter did a study on this, and while colleges claim different sources, when you break into it all those sources were talking about the same study done 40 years ago and the testing measures were complete trash when it comes to the one they teach as being correct (2% being false). This study was incredibly poorly done.
And, the college studies throw out every single other study done that shows higher numbers and says why those numbers are not reliable. Some went as high as 60%, and they said why that couldn’t be reliable due to the women not being in certain scenarios.
If you disregard each study until you find one you shape the parameters to meet your conclusion, you can make a study to support any theory.
I was shocked to see how many theories were dismissed entirely instead of going over fixing what they saw to be the issues with known higher percentage studies and making them reliable.
When I see a study, due to this, and due to having broken down such studies on a regular basis,
I tend to lean toward where the study is total and complete B.S. and what would make a study accurate.
September 20, 2016 at 3:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“Confused, information can be manipulated, so instead of believing the torture report, a huge amount of literature from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and various other wars we should seriously consider Bob’s fake information and fantasy scenarios, just like we are supposed to do with how economic data, retirement plan, etc. God, what a joke”
And instead of doing any critical thought to the validity of my comment and taking a look at the flaws of this research which you by the way have not provided sources for, you will just believe what fits the narrative of people who TOLD YOU what to think.
Let’s see the studies UW.
I’m waiting.
September 20, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
And UW:
I have personally seen people manipulate studies in professional universities. I am not inclined to believe a study just because it claims or anyone else claims, it is de facto.
You again focus on only studies you want to believe instead of directing flaws.
And then you say how ludicrous I am (character assaults) to disregard facts.
I don’t have time for you UW. Idiots like you don’t belong in college anyway. There are plenty of millennials in college debating the same as me. They all graduate. Are they just idiots who disregard science?
No. They question and inquire! That is the meaning of being a liberal, or it used to be.
Challenging the norms. If Einstein listened to idiots like you he would have never thought of relativity.
You think you’re the new and better generation. You’re not.
I AM YOUR AGE. If you didn’t catch recently I finally revealed I am a millennial.
You are a dime a dozen in college, and I can tell you are not that fresh out of it.
I am not surprised by people like you, but because people like you are so indoctrinated you are always surprised when people go against your norms. Hello UW, Mr. False Liberal, I will have none of it!
I will question, I will investigate, and this makes me INTELLIGENT.
September 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
UW:
1: What is the sample size:
2: What is the method of measurement?
3: Do you debate that only so many people will have high ranking information?
4: As such, how do we know who is high ranking and not? Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t.
5: As such, if we tortured what is the likelihood we are torturing someone who doesn’t know?
6: If they will admit anything to stop torture, doesn’t this show torture is effective in getting people to try and stop torture:
7: That being the case, and being the case that not all people will have information, is the sample size not relevant?
8: And that being the case, could you think of any realistic scenario where you tortured the right high ranking people with information more often than even 10% of the time?
9. By default in my scenario, you would then have 90% of all information incorrect.
10: If a study with a small sample, who was not torturing high ranking officials and was torturing people who did not have information came out, would it be reliable in light of 8? If they lied to stop torture and we didn’t get good information, given my ratios gone over it makes sense ratios would be low.
In what scenario, realistic study and what parameters, would you admit torture worked?
And I mean one we could replicate.
Human psychology is complicated. And you are talking as if you have the definite answer without weighing what could be wrong with the studies on whether or not torture works.
The social justice sciences are always this way.
They complicate everything.
Common sense also dictates the following:
You, and myself, under torture, would CERTAINLY give information about high ranking individuals if we had it. When people have fear, whether through pain or assets being lost or fun being lost, they always self preserve.
September 20, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
And most importantly UW:
WHY ARE YOU NOT ASKING 1-10 BEFORE YOU BELIEVE A STUDY???
Most researchers hear a study with the intent of proving it false, especially on issues like this.
This is the standard of peer review. I am shocked that my generation has turned peer review into the type of thing that people should be called ignorant for.
Denying the validity of something based on facts is ignorance? What school did you go to?
My questions are ignorance?
You are this much of a fool? Grow up!
September 20, 2016 at 4:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Give me your numbers UW. I’m not going to listen to a study you can’t go over.
You don’t argue proper at all. Let’s go ahead and debate. I don’t want the conclusions. I want the numbers and the methods of weight.
I want to know how and by what measure you believe torture doesn’t work.
Itemize the sample size, the testing means, testing location, and the control parameters to make sure that we were testing the proper types of torture. I want to obviously in light of that to know the types of torture.
Do we have torture studies on the break down of the mental fortitude of certain techniques? How would we? What research was done on any of those techniques?
It is ludicrous you say that I am ignoring sound studies.
I am about common sense and facts and I am SICK of millennials like you that come in saying that conservatives are just ignorant hicks that don’t know how to think!
I live in a liberal city, the types you speak of here DO NOT EXIST here, yet conservatives do.
I am sick of your implications with regards to conservatives, and your commentary multiple times here of conservatives being rich white men who want to control women. I’m a thirty something year old Hispanic man you idiotic sorry excuse of a human being.
And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research. Do NOT come in here accusing me of being a fool and forcing me into your boxed labels of conservatives! I will mow you down in intellectual capacity and knowledge on laws I have actually reviewed which you have not!
And it is easy to tell you have not. When I go on my posts about the Lilly Ledbetter act you are oddly silent, my commentary about the gun laws Obama supported that definitely inserted gun control language that was first implemented in Australia before their gun control, you don’t know that info! You just mouth off about how conservatives are against even sound gun issues like background checks, when those plans I just mentioned Obama lied and said they were just expanded background checks. I can quote the laws. Do you want them? I gave links with the law wording including which republicans passed the gay discrimination bill in WA state with only a few amendments requiring a vote, and requiring an exclusion for libel in regards to religious commentary for criminal liability for talking about gay issues. Do you want that link again?
What say you on those issues? The ones I can prove the republicans had real reasons to reject, and the democrats clearly mislead people regarding? Just what the heck happened there UW? Was that just ignorant Bible thumping hicks?
Where were you when Obama resigned the worst parts of the patriot act, or when he removed Gadaffi from Libya, which evidence shows might not have been a good idea?
Where were you since he has been bombing the crud out of ISIS while you tried to say that republicans would carpet bomb? When they said they would bomb these people they would be no different than Obama.
I’m sick of idiots like you that don’t do their homework!
Where were you with the Ohio democrat who passed flight laws in the issue of Fed Ex vs UPS, and he said despite the fact that he passed federal regulations, he was an Ohio senator so no other states could have an opinion? He gave benefits to one particular flight carrier.
Where the hell were you then!?!? Huh?
Why don’t you freaking source quote some laws kid, until then GTFO as our generation would say.
You’re out of your league in debating skills, and you’re out of line in tactics!
September 20, 2016 at 4:46 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Bob, stop with the insane rantings. You didn’t present studies, you presented a bullshit fictional scenario that goes against, as always with you (like with climate change, unemployment, retirement figures, etc), essentially all mainstream research. Furthermore, I actually cited something that wasn’t just created off the top of my head.
You bring up a bunch of well-rehearsed lines to shoot down studies, like the torture report, you don’t know about and haven’t read, but as you’ve proven over and over you don’t know ANYTHING about statistics. You don’t know confidence intervals and think most people can be significantly over the median for example. You are too clueless on anything other than right wing talking points, and fantastical scenarios, which you view as more credible than science, to even debate “proper”. How about the population of prisoners in US custody where 100% did not give information to stop an attack, but a source who wasn’t tortured have information that helped capture bin Laden, along with other techniques that aren’t illegal and immoral?
Also, saying “semi torture” is moronic.
How old is the earth? Were people created in their current form?
September 20, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Observe, a republican gun control law that they have tried to pass.
It has been amended and is still in progress. What they usually fight on is small absurd things which I will give another link regarding, in which the democrats didn’t like this aspect.
The debate on this one is whether or not to allow them to use a public firing range.
September 20, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
“Bob, stop with the insane rantings. You didn’t present studies, you presented a bullshit fictional scenario that goes against, as always with you (like with climate change, unemployment, retirement figures, etc), essentially all mainstream research. Furthermore, I actually cited something that wasn’t just created off the top of my head. ”
You didn’t present studies. I want over potential problems with studies on torture. It is completely relevant. Debate my items, and provide your sources that address these items.
“You bring up a bunch of well-rehearsed lines to shoot down studies, like the torture report, you don’t know about and haven’t read, but as you’ve proven over and over you don’t know ANYTHING about statistics. You don’t know confidence intervals and think most people can be significantly over the median for example. You are too clueless on anything other than right wing talking points, and fantastical scenarios, which you view as more credible than science, to even debate “proper”. How about the population of prisoners in US custody where 100% did not give information to stop an attack, but a source who wasn’t tortured have information that helped capture bin Laden, along with other techniques that aren’t illegal and immoral?
Also, saying “semi torture” is moronic.
How old is the earth? Were people created in their current form?”
I used semi because of the government debating on what torture is. It is not moronic.
How old is the earth? Screw you. Again, you take this style where you say people who deny what you say believe the Earth is a certain age. No. That is incendiary in a way you don’t need to be. You may debate my facts, you may not call me a religious lunatic.
I haven’t read the study? That’s funny, I mentioned having read the study but I could not recall it so I asked for a copy of it. But instead of providing that and dealing with facts you prefer to call me an idiot. Well rehearsed commentary? How about well though out?
I literally don’t know ANYTHING about statistics? Again, this is your issue. I can break down the studies in regards to false rape, do you really want me to quote 10 studies here right now? And I do this often! You instead rely on the study of who you believe is credible and then call me an idiot. Absurd. I don’t have time for you!
Debate the facts I put here on 1-10 on how your studies apply the facts.
Or can you?
September 20, 2016 at 4:57 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
2nd link summary: Democratic sponsored amendment – sought to prohibit an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm by the Gun Control Act from using a public target range.
Voting summary:
Democrat: 159 Yes – 11 No
Republican: 2 Yes – 233 No
September 20, 2016 at 5:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
This really is your problem UW. You say republicans don’t support ANY gun control. And now you say I don’t know ANY statistics.
When Hillary called us a basket of deplorables she revealed a bit of the goal of democrats that you follow very well.
Their goal is to make anyone who doesn’t fit into their norma against ALL morality.
Republicans didn’t have ANY health care plans? Funny, I’ve listed them.
They don’t support ANY gun control?
Funny, I’ve listed them too.
What your party does is lie on this again, and again, and again, and again, until people think republicans don’t support anything, and then use that to pass everything they can.
It is dishonest. I just gave examples with the Lilly Ledbetter Act, Gun Control, Gay discrimination laws, CRA laws vs CRA regs VS CRA loans, and how charter laws are set up for banking companies, where the exceptions lie for mergers, sales, etc, and how that could affect housing loans. But of course, because I am not one of the democrats, it is just well rehearsed crap and not a study.
There comes a point when someone sets up parameters that it merits portions of study and thought.
And I find it more than funny that you say I don’t know how to use any statistics considering how obsessed with them I am and how often I practically beg for you to give them and all you can do is call me names in reply of how I don’t believe in facts and I believe the world is 10,000 years old! I’ve told you probably about 50 times I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATION THEORY OR THE 10,000 YEARS BUT YOU KEEP ASKING THE @#%@#%ING QUESTION DON’T YOU??
Because that’s your goal and narrative.
Millennials will eventually kick people like you to the curb.
September 20, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“2nd link summary: Democratic sponsored amendment – sought to prohibit an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm by the Gun Control Act from using a public target range.
What is your point Confused? I said they fight over trivial issues.
Republicans clearly don’t see a threat in using a public firing range. I don’t either.
So because democrats don’t want criminals to use a gun ever, not even in a safe location, they won’t pass a bill?
My point is the republicans often have plans that are shot down for silly reasons like these. That is a democrat amendment, meaning we won’t pass this unless you add this silly section, and republicans by default are saying we will pass this without that amendment. The republicans voted against an added amendment and that makes the democrats the block if they refuse to pass the bill without such an absurd amendment.
However, the democrats are the only ones who have inserted wording that said you had to have a reason to own a gun.
September 20, 2016 at 5:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
And as for you UW:
I just refreshed myself on the study and presented the concerns that match up exactly with what I said were likely issues (sample size and how they determine whether it yielded information). And the ones that could have lead to information, there is no method of weight other than “We don’t know for sure if the torture is why they said it, we tortured them of course and they said it, but we won’t count that because they may have said it otherwise”. That is not science. That is disregarding the ones who gave information and were tortured and creates a scenario in which they will never accept information that was given from someone tortured because they believe it would have been given otherwise.
Also, my other point still stands, especially with low sample sizes:
You will always have issues with torturing people who just don’t have information. They don’t just share attack information with everyone. So you will for a fact torture people who have nothing and will thus make a large number of people who give no information compared to those who do.
So choke that down the next time you say I don’t use facts and studies you freaking immoral brat.
September 20, 2016 at 6:53 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob, I commented on the CIA Torture report you talked about when your idiotic fantasy was shot down by Confused. You posted pointless general guidelines that can be a problem with any study, but no actual evidence or points that exist outside of your fantasy, but of course demand we defeat your fantasy–you are literally insane. The CIA report found torture to be ineffective and do more harm than good. People know the more they talk the longer it is until they are put back underwater, shocked, beaten, etc., so they say anything even if they don’t know anything. This information then has to be researched and wastes time. If they create a scenario that seems more dangerous than the actual real-world intelligence gathered by effective means, the real intelligence is ignored.
These studies have shown the physiological conditions people are in while being tortured actually make it more difficult, and less likely to give information. The stress affects the brain in a manner that limits immediate access to long-term memory, significantly impairs memory overall, and makes getting information more difficult if not impossible. Also, limiting oxygen to the brain does basically the same thing. It didn’t work; you want it because you are into authoritarianism and a fantasy world.
You are whining for clinical studies, which cannot exist except maybe in your deranged fantasy world where we torture people for science (kind of like Nazis I guess–hey, another fascist movement aligned in thought with you, shocking!), and then explaining away the real-world evidence we have saying things like:
“We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point. And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.”
Again, putting your fantasies and imagination ahead of reality, because you are a hardcore ideologue.
“If you believe that the concept of torture is more important than giving a viable deterrent to would be child rapists en mass, you have the problem of morality here, as well as Planet.”
Many people believed that after WWII, luckily the world overall disagreed, and executed many of them. You are simply a far, far right-wing person with no respect for humanity. You support authoritarianism. You argued that terrorism is worthwhile if 97% of the people being tortured don’t have information. This doesn’t even touch on the undeniable fact that it makes it more dangerous for our military when captured in foreign war zones.
As for your idiotic whining about my other questions regarding the age of the earth and evolution, you cannot incessantly whine about statistical methods you don’t understand, sticking to data, and then support 2 positions that basically throw out all science. This isn’t your fantasyworld, and you don’t get to decide what scientific evidence is up for debate and what scientific evidence we have to ignore, because, ONCE AGAIN, you believe something.
You simply, straight-up, do not believe or accept science.
“I literally don’t know ANYTHING about statistics? Again, this is your issue. I can break down the studies in regards to false rape, ”
No, genius, that is the point. If you don’t know how statistics work you can summarize what other have written, but BY DEFINITION you CANNOT break them down coherently, accurately, or competently, as you have proven.
You are completely losing it. You have no knowledge on anything.
“Do NOT come in here accusing me of being a fool and forcing me into your boxed labels of conservatives!”
I’m not accusing you, I’ve exposed you. You are a far right-wing conservative; nothing you have ever stated would prove otherwise. You claim to be a moderate and a libertarian, which are contradictory positions. You simply refuse to be grouped with the other people who believe exactly what you believe.
I will mow you down in intellectual capacity and knowledge on laws I have actually reviewed which you have not!”
Still waiting.
“And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research.”
Yeah, so am I. Sadly, I care about what random people think about your research about as much as I care about your various fantasy worlds. I know you don’t know shit about economics; have to create false numbers for every single variable to justify your retirement plan, or any other economic plan you comment on; don’t believe in evolution, don’t believe in science; don’t know statistics, and exist in what I think might be a total alternate reality. Or, maybe they just want you to shut … up, like every thinking-person here.
September 20, 2016 at 7:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
UW:
I just have to comment further here on your ignorance and bigotry when you say that 10,000 year comment.
Instead of arguing any topic that has anything to do with this conversation you instead apply a label to avoid any debate and to also state why I should not be listened to.
You already know and I have already said I do not subscribe to 10,000 year old Earth’s. You saying that again and again is bigoted and I have no idea how you don’t realize that.
Take what you have been told about what is inappropriate to do to one race or belief (gays and blacks) and apply it EQUALLY to all others (Christians).
Ben Shapiro makes a point of saying about millennials that do this:
You must stop fact, and address the moral high ground they are then immorally claiming they have. If someone uses these dishonest debate tactics you don’t stay on the topic of debate, you immediately call them trash for it and say why and how. Then you go back to the topic. If they still insist on doing it you again and again point out they are trash and are immoral, and then you go back to debate the topic. Never ignore the assaults because as it so happens, it works with millennials.
September 20, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
UW:
This is similar to how for months, and you will likely do it again, you have claimed how I am immoral and want to kill Muslims.
Each time I have corrected you, and attempted to correct what Trump actually supported, and each time you go into this fight.
It’s a winning fight on the left. Just keep yelling out racism etc, and the mistake is that people don’t realize that millennials, as much as they say otherwise, try more to be sensitive to the possibility of racism than they do facts.
As such, my reply each time will be forget you, you’re immoral for even suggesting that I want to kill Muslims, it is ludicrous, insane, and out of line, and then I will go back to the topic of facts.
You don’t get to just run around calling people genocidal maniacs while claiming that every scandal on your side’s end is just tin foil hat paranoia.
GENOCIDAL EARTH DESTROYING CHILDREN STARVING MIDDLE CLASS OPPRESSING GAY HATING WOMAN DOMINATING EVIL PEOPLE
Is paranoia. And that is what you call the right. It isn’t ok.
The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
While you claim travesties in all angles, you then go around crying about every little thing the right tries to hold you accountable for.
Shut up. Grow up. Learn to debate.
September 20, 2016 at 10:11 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Bob has gone crazy again!! Getting crushed again has blown his millenial mind.
September 20, 2016 at 10:14 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
>The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
I agree. She should have said, “Pieces of crap” or something similar. 2/3 think Obama is a Muslim. They are for the most part trash & deplorable.
September 22, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Actu:
“>The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
I agree. She should have said, “Pieces of crap” or something similar. 2/3 think Obama is a Muslim. They are for the most part trash & deplorable.”
Even if someone thought this it would not make them pieces of crap. The fact that they think it is not out of left wing considering Obama’s background.
I don’t share the belief myself, I think it’s fairly obvious Obama is too arrogant and doesn’t actually have a religion he follows other than his own personal whims. It is highly doubtful there is a religion he “submits to” instead of “participates in”.
And you just made my point. Regardless of whatever poll you have seen (likely targeted to cities they already know have the believe Obama is a Muslim, and then they disregarded the others. I have seen this happen on many issues, and yet I cannot find conservatives other than one offs who actually believe it. If it were 2/3rd’s, I would personally know some and I do not) you have found reasons to dehumanize the alternate side as your leader has. While you will say Trump does this as well,
There are no campus riots being taken part en masse by republicans. Republicans are not shutting down liberal debate on campus. They are not getting known professors fired. There are no republican professors saying they believe macro aggression is an appropriate reply to micro aggression. I gave links to that but it isn’t showing up. I use this argument for you, likely a millennial, because you would do well to understand the corruption in your age group and what was done is literally the worst type of corruption by liberals. There is not attempt to indoctrinate you by the right in college universities.
There are no Trump protestors at Hillary campaigns. There are no Trump protestors at Bernie campaigns.
There are not repeated false reports on sexual assault (this happened not long ago when a lady screamed a Trump supporter touched her breast on camera before punching a guy in the face and immediately getting pepper sprayed. Instead of focusing on her clear lying about sexual assault and her punching they focused on the pepper spray retaliation) or older women accusing 70 year old blind Trump supporters of attacking them, or the false Rolling Stones Rape narrative, or things like that, in the mainstream College campus that is being used to indoctrinate kids.
While you call us fascist, your side is partaking in unbelievable actions to shut down the other side, and free speech, and violent actions encouraged by professors and faculty.
Deplorables? No. We aren’t deplorables because of what we think and believe. But your side (not the kids and you but your actual politicians which is worse) are for what you do in the academia.
September 22, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Also Actu:
I have not been crushed. I imagine that UW has presented more “conclusions” and “opinions” than he has what I have, which is dissection of the data.
I’ve been crushed? I pointed out the number of tortured people studied. I pointed out as well I might add, common sense. If you’re tortured you will give up information. I can think like both an atheist because I was one, and someone who believes in God because I do now.
Let’s go on this point real quick:
In the absence of a God, what goes above yourself? Not much. How easy are you to break based on self perseverance? Extremely. Common sense without a God: Torture will work.
In the existent of a God you are either with him or against him. If you are with him he will help you with not giving information. If you are against him he will not. Just believing you are with a false God will not create a protection from self preservation. This is exactly why indoctrination works from false religions. They all attempt to make you feel like someone is protecting you. It only goes so far, and very small amount of people will believe it entirely against their own being. So, in the case of God existing, torture would work.
Back on topic though:
I gave the numbers on this. I showed that they disregarded when people gave information post torture because they don’t believe there is evidence that the torture caused it. Why?
According to the studies, because all the OTHER people gave false information which means the majority of information will be false, combined with some social science about we don’t know if we had not tortured them if they wouldn’t have given the same based on people doing so we didn’t torture.
There is no science that proves that. It is a guess.
There is no scenario in which they will therefore admit that torture is the cause, there is no sample large enough (as torture does not regularly occur, and there are no controlled studies as such) etc.
I have not been crushed. And the fact that you say “crushed” shows what you view as important. You are a tyrant, like a football team you are addicted to the win. Not whether or not someone or something is correct.
September 20, 2016 at 4:28 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
“And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.” -bob
That’s the problem I have with your argument. Your opinion on what the statistics may be is driving your actionable items. If I imagine 0 people will reveal their terrorist acts when tortured, then torture is totally unnecessary because it doesn’t work, ever.
What’s the real effective rate of torture based on a statistically significant sample size? We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.
Is there ANYTHING out there which confirms “we gathered this information SOLELY by torture and that info saved lives”? They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.
If if there is not even ONE documented case which proves “torture lead to this new information and this information allowed us to save lives” then your 3/1,000 opinion is false and your justification of torture is based on an invalid assumption of its effectiveness.
“And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.” -bob
That’s the problem I have with your argument. Your opinion on what the statistics may be is driving your actionable items. If I imagine 0 people will reveal their terrorist acts when tortured, then torture is totally unnecessary because it doesn’t work, ever.
What’s the real effective rate of torture based on a statistically significant sample size? We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.
Is there ANYTHING out there which confirms “we gathered this information SOLELY by torture and that info saved lives”? They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.
If if there is not even ONE documented case which proves “torture lead to this new information and this information allowed us to save lives” then your 3/1,000 opinion is false and your justification of torture is based on an invalid assumption of its effectiveness.”
No. My statistics on what would be issues with a sound study, you lack a sound study.
That opinion I just mentioned must have a degree of validity by default. The issue is we don’t have a study to see how much, and your studies DO NOT ADDRESS THIS therefore they cannot be taking it into consideration, and therefore they cannot be valid studies.
My 1-10 goes over all of this. We do not have sound study into torture that disproves it’s existence, and my issue is where you bolded people who said there was no evidence of torture working with clown parade level of study, low test samples, not considering what percentage of the people they are torturing could possibly have information, not adjusting the delta for that, etc.
Use your freaking head, and not your emotional conjecture.
Also, get this UW moron off my rear end. If I sound discontent with you please note I have been on the better side until this jack off came in here.
So I apologize in advance, but really I don’t need to be rode like Seattle’s Slew.
September 20, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.”
“In some cases, investigators found no relationship between the claimed success and any information provided by the detainee.”
This line concerns me.
“In other cases, the CIA inaccurately stated that unique information was acquired from a CIA detainee as a result of the interrogations, when the intelligence was either acquired earlier or was available from other sources, according to the report.”
This line concerns you.
The first line, is what I mentioned I saw in college in regards to false rape allegations, in which they disregarded every measure that was upwards of 60% until they concluded it was 3%, for similar reasons to what this says.
They said that the women were not investigated by a certain type of social worker for rape, and therefore the bias they had and social pressures were not taken into consideration. They would after all only feel safe talking to a social worker.
You do realize the only conclusion you can draw if that is true…Is that in pressure talking about rape, women lie and say rape was false, correct? In excess of 90% of the time to dwindle it form 60% down to 3%.
I have issues with studies that say “Well we can’t prove that the torture yielded results conclusively so we will toss out these 20 cases” and then they intentionally put one beside it that they know everyone will agree is bad information (obviously intelligence gleaned before torture doesn’t prove torture).
September 20, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also note the sample size:
“In all, 39 detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques between 2002 and 2008, the investigation found.”
39!!! Do you have any idea what the odds are that they had the correct 39? A sample size of 39 is not appropriate at all!
And you say “multiple studies” have shown “zero” incidents.
If out of 39, 20 were deemed to be inconclusive because they don’t know for certain that torture yielded results OR information was gleaned before hand, I WANT THOSE SEPARATED. Maybe the fact that they are combined is intentionally misleading, but moreover, if it were even half, that would be 10 out of 39 that may have yielded results but they threw it out because it was not conclusive.
At what point do we establish the torture had an affect if we just say “we don’t know if they would have given the information without torture”?
What measure of weight would establish that?
Again, what is the sample size, what is the method of measurement for what did not yield results? And this study doesn’t cover it with any reliability whatsoever, and in fact supports what I have said.
September 20, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Confused,
Can you now see why I have problems with the PC movement methods of silence and power?
Can you really tell me obnoxious idiots in College who shut down debate similar to how UW is now, is not a serious issue with millennials?
Did I not just adequately make my case? One is free to disagree, but instead I have people making implications that I don’t take studies and facts seriously, because I am questioning the reliability based on the method of measurement, the science available on the issue, the reliability of said science, and then my common sense problem areas? (Which are not opinion. They would be problem areas the number is debatable but we know for a fact only certain people have information so you would have to torture people who didn’t that gave false information and weed through it. This existence of false info from people who don’t have it does not disprove the reliability of torture).
I cannot have a debate on these issues without this happening.
On the alternate side however, in campuses the liberal left has debated without challenge on these issues regarding torture and have basically told kids the jury is out on it. When you go to debate and everyone agrees with you, and when someone doesn’t you turn the debate into things that have nothing to do with the topic, there is an issue.
Conservative debate needs to happen, and idiots like UW, and the issue with the millennials just following instead of questioning, is a serious one. The probability of a personality like that becoming indoctrinated to a high level, is high, and that is dangerous. The only possible solution is to move into free debate.
September 20, 2016 at 8:37 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“Can you now see why I have problems with the PC movement methods of silence and power?
Can you really tell me obnoxious idiots in College who shut down debate similar to how UW is now, is not a serious issue with millennials?”
Funny how big a problem being PC is to you guys, until anybody says anything you disagree with. My comment was deleted, because people like you complain. I’ve never done the same. Why is “College” capitalized? I’ve never shut down debate, and none of my posts are based in fantasy. Your problem is that you have no ability to discern reality and good sources from fantasy and BS.
“And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research”
I am astounded too, but not in a good way.
“I have had it to high heaven with millennials leaving out this important section. The men are murdered, the women and children are taken as sex slaves to have more terrorist children.”
A lot of people held these abhorrent beliefs in WWII, and thankfully they were tried, convicted and executed for their atrocities. Torture will not stop any of the things you mention, and will probably make them worse. It certainly makes it more dangerous for our military members when they are captured.
I commented on the CIA Torture report you talked about when your idiotic fantasy was shot down by Confused. You posted pointless general guidelines that can be a problem with any study, but no actual evidence or points that exist outside of your fantasy. The CIA report found torture to be ineffective and do more harm than good. People know the more they talk the longer it is until they are put back underwater, shocked, beaten, etc., so they say anything. If they make up BS stories, those have to be investigated too, and waste time investigating actual intelligence.
These studies have shown the physiological conditions people are in while being tortured actually make it more difficult, and less likely to give information. The stress affects the brain in a manner that limits immediate access to long-term memory, significantly impairs memory overall, and makes getting information more difficult if not impossible. Also, limiting oxygen to the brain does basically the same thing. It didn’t work; you want it because you are into authoritarianism and a fantasy world.
As for your whining about my other questions regarding the age of the earth and evolution, you cannot incessantly whine about statistical methods you don’t understand, sticking to data, and then support 2 positions that basically throw out all science.
“and attempted to correct what Trump actually supported, and each time you go into this fight.”
You mean justified, as you are doing here, because you are an authoritarian. He said we have to “take out their families,” and you completely ignore the context, and say he did not mean kill them. It makes no sense. You are in the absolute minority on reading it that way, as you are on seemingly every single topic. You can write this for months on end, and nothing will change, because it is an astoundingly stupid argument.
You whine and ask for evidence, and then dismiss it because it is not a clinical study, something which is not possible now, but explain away actual evidence, instead relying on your imagination:
“We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point.
And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.”
An absolute fantasy world holds more credence to you than actual real-world results. It is absolutely clownish. However, for some reason you think this is a devastating debate. I am not interested in debating your fantasy world, which coincidentally is the only place you can ‘smack me’ or perpetrate any of the physical violence or non-physical whippings you have constantly threatened.
Every comment you make is bordering on, or engaging in outright hate speech, whether it is liberals, millenials, Muslims, etc.
“We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.”
But, since we don’t know, and therefore cannot know how much it is working, we should ignore the CIA Report, ignore the preponderance of testimony from POWs in dozens of countries over decades, and torture people, because of what YOU imagine. This is a STUPID ARGUMENT that you cling to despite it being disturbing in how illogical it is. That is one of the hundreds of examples of why I oftentimes use the term “pseudointellectual”.
September 22, 2016 at 3:25 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob:”39!!! Do you have any idea what the odds are that they had the correct 39? A sample size of 39 is not appropriate at all!”
Clueless. This is what I’m getting at with your idiocy when it comes to statistics. You are incompetent. 30 is LITERALLY the TEXTBOOK generally accepted sample size minimum. 39 is higher than that, in case you try to do the math yourself. Yes, it can vary… and I bet I can guess your position! But, this would have relatively few variables, and you don’t know this, medians, or basic stats so you clearly have no valid thoughts on Gaussian methods. Every novella you post here is littered with errors. Pseudo… Something.
Deposit long uninformed rant ignoring all of reality below, please.
September 22, 2016 at 4:05 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Mark A. Costanzo, Ph.D. Professor Ph.D., University of California did a study on this, comparing what little info we had. I know you will use what he says to say that torture doesn’t work, but the point here is getting past his conclusion and instead weighing why he is saying this.
“And, even in cases where torture may have preceded the
disclosure of useful information, it is impossible to know whether less coercive
forms of interrogation might have yielded the same or even better results.”
Google the study because my posts with links aren’t showing up and I don’t want to risk this one not being shown.
This is what they usually default to, due to the exact problem I mentioned before. They say the following things, exactly like I spelled it out:
Item 1: They say that torture produces inaccurate information since they will say anything to avoid being tortured. They then compare the percent of false information
Item 2: They say how many people in history agreed with them (with studies that were not controlled, and often we are talking centuries old)
Item 3: Because they can say Item 1, they focus on how often people only say information to stop being tortured. You can sift through that information easily today. If it is wrong, you might be tortured worse. At some point, this is sure to stop, especially becuase of Item 1. If they will say anything to stop pain, if they know that if they lie it will cause more, eventually they won’t give more false information. They may try, but they will be figured out.
Now, an interesting point here and I will post a link on it.
For you Confused: There is a study which shows information was given. They also try to twist it, but it seems they do not divulge the possibility that the 3-17% of the information they got that was correct, is because only 3-17% of the people had information to give.
September 22, 2016 at 4:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“But the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse (an exceptional high). Most of the time, the torturers were unable to get any statement whatsoever. ”
Google that line and you will find the article. I accidentally said 17%.
The issue with them condemning this study is that they said from those years they only got that amount total. This means they didn’t say why torture was done, to whom, if it were to convicts of internal crimes or external (like spies vs local murders, if it included local murders self preservation would kick in for them not to confess, so they aren’t hung.).
But it does show that torture showed numbers of accurate information.
September 22, 2016 at 4:11 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused,
Your argument has been that there is not one example, I will challenge you with the following:
If you believe that, you have not done the due diligence on this, and if your side is stating that, they are lying.
Given what I said, do you not concede the only possibility is the people saying torture has never been proven to work (leftists in the government) must be by default lying or misleading based on ignorance?
And if that is true, the republicans who present this information who are shamed and shown as bad, are they not perhaps due some leniency if they are drawing these conclusions based on what I’m saying?
Which party would be more morally reprehensible on this matter? One that says there is “no” evidence without diligence or through lying, or one that says it is “possible” torture will work and help?
I guess that is subjective, but to me, when I see my age group buying into the lefts ideals at a rate of 75-85%, I tend to get pissed at the one who is winning the war. 50-50 should be happening, and in any case, this moral battle as actu and UW make it should not be occurring.
While I am being called psychotic, and morally evil, and complicit with the torture of innocents.
September 23, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Isn’t it funny how when you apply common sense the studies make sense UW?
I said you might torture 97 people who don’t have information and 3 do.
And then the study I had varied from 3-14%. They gave false information at times, but ultimately, they cracked. And moreover: These people are not considering the likelihood that the person they are torturing does not have the information they are torturing for.
As I said before, they are taking the obviously low amount of people who have high ranking information into no consideration at all, and are instead saying it only works 3-14% of the time!
Perhaps in the 1700’s we didn’t have good enough intel to know who we were torturing for information, as a side comment. But on point, let’s say we capture 1000 extremist ISIS folks during war.
And let’s say it is 3%. 30 would give relevant information to saving lives. It these 30 had relevant information it is likely that only so many are duplicity. In other words, these are probably mulitple attack methods. In a year, there are an average of over 1 attack/s per day, with tens of thousands of deaths if we count just the terrorism. If we however count the attacks on the nations themselves, this instead comes out to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
If we stopped even one of the major city attacks through intel, we would save tens of thousands of lives, but wait, remember how I said it would have duplicates? Instead, we may end up stopping 3-5. And if we were seriously involved in the war over there, this would be 30,000-100,000 saved lives.
And because you want to be nice to 1,000 rapists, children murdering, evil pieces of trash, you are willing to let those people die, and allow for people to be displaced and live lives in fear.
There is a video online that shows Afghanistan and Iran in the 70’s before a cultural take over by extreme Muslims, and then after. Go google that. It is the Muslim faith for one, but for two, you in America make sure to monitor and hold the Christian faith accountable for all their bigotry and sins, and have accused them as responsible for slavery (BULL I might add). You won’t hold them accountable for their domination in the middle east?
And you think you have moral high ground? How dare you. You have no high ground.
September 23, 2016 at 6:04 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“And if we were seriously involved in the war over there, this would be 30,000-100,000 saved lives.”
Even pretending your idiotic fantasy world had a shred of truth to it, which the actual studies and historic testimony, contradict but of course don’t count, that is fewer then the innocents killed and destroyed in your war in Iraq. So yes, you are immoral.
September 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
In my opinion, if you KNOW the person has credible information, go ahead and use whatever means necessary to obtain the information. You cannot just go and torture people hoping they have or think they may have credible information.
As I stated above, there will always be a filter but you are likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, these numbers are likely to be high.
You can know they are likely to know information. The government would not simply torture people for the sake of it.
However, the people who have no information are not then subjected to anything they don’t deserve, as long as one makes sure that only people with extremely credible information are tortured. For example people we have pictures of attending meetings with high ranking officials. Not for example someone who has lived in the U.S. for ten years that we have no information regarding.
We can agree the government has made errors here (Not Bush W’s fault so don’t even go there). Changes need to be made, but what doesn’t need to happen is dishonest debate on whether torture works with manipulated statistics that are designed to trigger people and win elections and nothing more.
Quick reply before tomorrow – bob, I understand your points on the CIA study. Do you happen to know of any verified occasions where torture lead to new information which avoided a terrorist act? Not even a study – anything that could be source checked to confirm we could all agree there was at leastvthat we know of one specific occasion of torture “working”?
September 20, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Mobile reply error above.
…there was at least one specific occasion where torture was effective and not just more conjecture?
September 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
That goes against your previous comment made today where you were fine with only 3/100 knowing anything. Please be consistent when advocating for the torture of innocent people.
September 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“That goes against your previous comment made today where you were fine with only 3/100 knowing anything. Please be consistent when advocating for the torture of innocent people.”
No. It doesn’t. It goes exactly in line with it.
I am not advocating for the torture of innocent people. And you are trash for saying that in order to make the debate go away from facts and instead into your own self righteous zealotry.
I said that unfortunately the numbers will never be perfect.
And when I mentioned you might have 97 people who know nothing to 3 people who do, I specifically went over that this number was regarding confirmed captured terrorists.
The issue was whether or not they had the information, not whether or not they were innocent.
That is why I separately confirmed here that you will always have errors. There is no such thing as a program that won’t have errors. It is also why I said:
“However, the people who have no information are not then subjected to anything they don’t deserve, as long as one makes sure that only people with extremely credible information are tortured. For example people we have pictures of attending meetings with high ranking officials. Not for example someone who has lived in the U.S. for ten years that we have no information regarding. ”
This sounds contradictory, but it’s not. When I say extremely credible information in the second line I am not referring to information to be obtained, I’m referring people we have extremely credible information to believe they are terrorists, pictures etc.
And again, you are the extreme one here, not Trump. You are the one stopping progress.
September 22, 2016 at 12:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Confused,
Yes. I do. By your own study’s admission and measure there are 20 of which an unnamed amount cannot be definitively committed to getting information (in other words they were tortured but the CIA won’t admit that was the reason they gave information)
It was divided into two groups, people they couldn’t confirm the torture was the reason behind the information, and people that were tortured after they gave it.
This means by default people who were tortured gave information.
There is not going to be a study that says they gave it due to torture, and I already explained why.
They will always say that it cannot be definitive. Go back to your own link and read the 500 page report if you want to see for yourself if they divide out those two numbers. As for me, I’m not taking that much time into this. It would take me potentially hours, which I already do too much of as it is.
September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
It occurs to me you are too triggered to know what I meant even when I explained it:
The number of people that will unfortunately be high is the number of confirmed terrorists who do not have information compared to the number of confirmed people who do not have information (97 to 3 example)
The amount of people who will be tortured who are innocent is not something I went over in this link in direct numbers. I did direct it indirectly by saying we need to make sure the people we torture have evidence, including pictures etc that they are or could be involved with the high ranking officials to make sure we don’t torture people who are not terrorists.
At no point did I say “I am for torturing innocent people”.
None. You cannot make that inference simply because it is possible that an innocent person may be tortured. You are free to that belief, you are free to bring it up as a concern.
You are not free to say that anyone who supports torture is therefore for the torture of innocents. By that extension, I can blame you for the people who have died because we have not been able to gather information from terrorists due to you being against torture that may reveal that information and save lives.
In the former, you are asking for perfection in what cannot be a perfect world (that no one innocent gets tortured). In the latter, we are stating what is a highly likely result of torture (Saving lives) and you are stating that you cannot know that lives are saved so we must instead be for torture to support it. If one believes that torture has results, by default they are not for torture of innocents. They are for saving lives.
This type of behavior is common when millennials debate and it is not at all ok.
This is similar to the abortion debate. Either you are for some absurd theory that calls a baby part of the mother’s autonomy or you are against the mother.
No. There is a such thing as being for life of the child, without being against the mother, and in fact being pro life for the two of them.
But instead, you paint out the people against your issues as deplorables. Ergo why that comment is something that reveals a lot about your side. Unlike zealots who are cast out on the right, and dismissed as whack jobs, your rejects are winning you party nominations while openly stating and it being AGREED what they say (as opposed to Trump) things such as the deplorables comment. People actually agree with Hillary on that statement.
On the right, the party has criticized the heck out of Trump for anything he says that is wrong.
Perhaps your party and their people need to be better about inward reflection.
September 20, 2016 at 5:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Clarification:
Dishonest debate from politicians to trigger people and win elections and nothing more. I don’t take debate from people as a whole on this issue with concerns as dishonest debate in general, except for people like UW.
Your comment in this section is reasonable. So our confused. I apologize if I’m riled up. UW is just being annoying and I’m at wit’s end.
And me, and Confused, and Planet, and every single person who bases their debate and points on reality instead of bull—- studies created in their head.
September 21, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You’d like us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like those deplorables? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
I have said nothing here that implies I need mental help. I have not even sworn this time around.
Telling someone they are a brat, etc, as they try to call you a murderer, a torturer of the innocent, an idiot who believes in the 10,000 year earth theory, is not insanity.
What is however literal bullying here, is what you just did.
You didn’t take part in the debate, you took part in a jab.
Do you understand that? And for that, I will borrow from Ben Shapiro, and call you two things:
A morally bankrupt bully.
Trash.
If you have problems with that, and then come back saying how much I insult, please default to all my previous comments where I go over what different types of insults are including their intended purpose.
Your intended purpose here is the reason why it turns to bullying.
I am many things, but a bully I am not. Calling me morally bankrupt and trash is also not necessary. My intent was not to insult you by suggesting you should seek mental help; if you see I said “as someone who has been there.” Yes, Bob, I have been regularly visiting a psychologist for years to discuss things in my life. I feel no shame in stating that, as it’s part who I am.
My point was that this kind of thing should absolutely not get you as upset as it does. I, and other readers of this forum, have seen you rant at length at a bunch of people you have never met and likely never will, and it’s concerning. I didn’t bring up any insults, your cursing at anyone or anything else.
A few years ago, some people turned what should be an honest, intellectual discussion forum about the INSURANCE INDUSTRY into a place to vent about their political leanings. That’s not what this should be about. It’s at the point where a lot of people have stopped commenting or even reading the comments because of this. I’m not pointing the finger solely at you or any one person here.
Please accept my sincerest apology as I did not mean to offend, and all things considered should not have commented in the first place. Whether you choose to accept my apology is completely up to you, at any rate I do wish you well.
“I am many things, but a bully I am not. Calling me morally bankrupt and trash is also not necessary. My intent was not to insult you by suggesting you should seek mental help; if you see I said “as someone who has been there.” Yes, Bob, I have been regularly visiting a psychologist for years to discuss things in my life. I feel no shame in stating that, as it’s part who I am. ”
I am not shaming you about that statement. Calling you morally bankrupt and trash is necessary. It’s called consequence for calling someone psychotic. If you are going to a psychiatrist you are not the psychiatrist qualified to make statements on my mental health, and doing so is completely out of line.
“My point was that this kind of thing should absolutely not get you as upset as it does. I, and other readers of this forum, have seen you rant at length at a bunch of people you have never met and likely never will, and it’s concerning. I didn’t bring up any insults, your cursing at anyone or anything else.”
At what measure and point do you consider me to be completely upset? That I am passionate on the issue? That I post coherent posts and look it up a lot? That I get ticked when someone constantly calls me a murderer? I don’t need mental help on this one. When I “rant” at people I have never met, they have also accused me of things that are outside of the band of normalcy. Do they all need to see a psychiatrist as well? Some people debate online. If this were in person, you surely must agree what they are saying would likely trigger a response from a mentally sound person. And I constantly try to bring it back to a civil tone. I do however let people know when they are being out of line. This is not insanity.
“A few years ago, some people turned what should be an honest, intellectual discussion forum about the INSURANCE INDUSTRY into a place to vent about their political leanings. That’s not what this should be about. It’s at the point where a lot of people have stopped commenting or even reading the comments because of this. I’m not pointing the finger solely at you or any one person here.”
Which people turned this site political? The site has decided apparently to post political aspects here and this post is a clear one at that. That wasn’t any of our choices. You will note I do not bring up political points on posts about insurance. We all tend to keep on topic.
However, when we debate, there are indeed those here who turn this insurance site into a place to denounce the other side in politics. I am not one of them until the topic comes up. In terms of these topics at hand, the responses being political makes sense.
“Please accept my sincerest apology as I did not mean to offend, and all things considered should not have commented in the first place. Whether you choose to accept my apology is completely up to you, at any rate I do wish you well.”
This is an apology at the end of having said I need psychiatric help, and then backing it up before you apologized. You might understand why I am not inclined to believe it, but assuming that is your true attempt I accept.
If you find what I said to be insulting I will have to correct you in advance: All of this is my response and explanation. Inclusive of saying why calling you morally bankrupt and trash is the appropriate reply. One cannot go around calling someone psychotic and stating they should know they are seeking therapy.
Louie, I’ve stated I believe Bob needs help too and he completely lost it; that was in a thread where a few other people said the same thing. My problem is not that he gets upset, but that he completely flips out. Once he loses it I ignore him for a few days. In the past he has threatened me and others with physical violence multiple times, and even ranted that if liberals did not stop implementing the policies they were elected to enact there would have to be a civil war, or in other words, people would be killed. If people don’t lay off he eventually starts ranting about his childhood and school days. He thinks disagreeing with him, and pointing out stupid statements is bullying behavior.
I agree he is close to morally bankrupt, but not fully. He is arguing for torturing people-an immoral act-if 3/100 people have information, or alternatively, torturing 97% innocents, to get at the 3%, in his fantasy world of course. He has also ranted against homosexuals, supporting treating them like second class citizens, and supported racism, even speculating black children were trained to be disobedient towards the police. He is, according to my morals, and IMO those expressed in the Bible, not a moral person.
“Louie, I’ve stated I believe Bob needs help too and he completely lost it; that was in a thread where a few other people said the same thing. My problem is not that he gets upset, but that he completely flips out. ”
While you constantly lie about what I’ve said, call me a dolt, say I’m for murdering Muslims, I have gays, and I support a 10,000 year old Earth. Yes. I freak out, occasionally and swear back. That is not insanity. The degree of control you want in PC nature is actually your method of control. You would ideally like to shut down and throw all people who freak out into psychiatry. What does that sound like? Fascism authoritarian style rule which you accuse me of.
“Once he loses it I ignore him for a few days. In the past he has threatened me and others with physical violence multiple times, and even ranted that if liberals did not stop implementing the policies they were elected to enact there would have to be a civil war, or in other words, people would be killed. If people don’t lay off he eventually starts ranting about his childhood and school days. He thinks disagreeing with him, and pointing out stupid statements is bullying behavior. ”
I have never threatened you with physical violence. I have said if you were in a bar someone would certainly punch you in the face, and the only reason you don’t get punched online is that you talk tough online. Your resulting phrase was to say YOU could kick my butt. I then said you wouldn’t stand a chance, and you mocked my lifting in the gym for months. I think this shows your insanity. You intentionally try to troll me. I do not think disagreeing with me is bullying behavior, though you do believe this (projection) I think refusing to debate topics and then trying to instead make the game about ignoring someone, saying they need mental health, etc, is bullying. That is what lead a teen to suicide recently. People like you.
“I agree he is close to morally bankrupt, but not fully. He is arguing for torturing people-an immoral act-if 3/100 people have information, or alternatively, torturing 97% innocents, to get at the 3%, in his fantasy world of course. He has also ranted against homosexuals, supporting treating them like second class citizens, and supported racism, even speculating black children were trained to be disobedient towards the police. He is, according to my morals, and IMO those expressed in the Bible, not a moral person.”
No. I’m not. Also, it is not immoral if 3 out of 100 people have information because I’m not talking 97 out of 100 are innocent. These 97 are child raping murderers. If we have these people in custody and there is a 3% chance that we can save 1,000 people by torturing them? What is immoral, not saving the 1,000 or making sure a murdering piece of crap doesn’t get tortured? You paint the people against you as immoral when in fact you are.
I have not ranted against homosexuals. You garbage. I said that there is not equality of needs for homosexual couples. I provided earnings statements proving it, and said that making single sex couples receive the same benefits as dual sex does not make sense economically, or as a matter of equality. A separate law is what I argued for, that treats them fairly. But you are delusional and make these things up. I did not imply they were trained to act disrespectfully to the police, I said that when you do you can get in serious trouble and that instead of being told the police are out to kill them (which will cause them to fight back, and would cause me to fight back, ERGO being black is not the issue it is an ACTION) they should instead be told to be sure to listen to police at all times.
This is exactly what pisses me off, you say crap like this, which again, if it were said in person a reasonable person would punch you in the fact for extreme disrespect, and then you get surprised.
We have differing opinions. That is it. And calling me these things? That is bullying. You can’t have a reasonable discussion and disagree. Instead I become a gay hater because of my beliefs.
I have never once insulted gays. I made a point of showing which gay people I listen to in lectures.
How dare you accuse me of hating them!
September 23, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also: No. I avoid you.
Any time, and EVERY time, I talk with you this happens and you refuse to shut up, until I leave.
Any time you talk with me you accuse me of this bull crap.
It isn’t ok. You are the one who is quite psychotic. It’s like you don’t hear the words you say or that I say.
Just the narrative you have created in your head.
September 23, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And another final point:
I have not lost it on this page, despite your constant abuse, which is what you are currently engaging in.
It is harassment. I’m sick of it. This is not you simply disagreeing and presenting facts. At many times you attacked me by extension of affiliation, and otherwise misrepresented what I have said.
You have found reason to lump me into the Christian group to insult me, and all of your assaults are not some way of saying you disagree. They are more or less ways of saying:
You piece of crap, I hate you, you are the source of bigotry, racism, sexism, and death of innocents.
Instead of taking on the real issues in the black community, you do this. Instead of weighing if torture can save lives you instead default to calling people who try to have a debate that may save lives as immoral.
I am quite tired of your shifts to supposed morality instead of facts and then calling me the worst human in the world.
I don’t have to talk with you politely. I often do.
I don’t have to disprove you with facts.
I often do.
I don’t have engage with you, but I often do. And unlike you, it isn’t for the purpose of calling you garbage (though I will call you as such when you start with your bull as you just did) it is often TO DEBATE.
Debate is always good, exchanging ideas with the intent of change.
I can and will list what I have changed politically in the last 10 years, and where I differ from republicans. You NEVER say the same on the left. Literally, never. You always defend these guys.
I can and have tried to calm down conversations by saying my phrasings were poor and triggered people. You have NEVER said you are talking inappropriately. You are the God in your speech. If you pay attention to me long term you will see I am not in mine.
September 23, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I will go back to my original gay argument I had:
Do you believe that homosexual couples (as I called them in debate single gender couples) have the same marriage needs as 2 gender couples?
That was the debate. I said no. Equality of “marriage” is not synonymous with equality of rights and needs, specifically because of the answer to the above. They are not the same. They are literally different.
Most married couples procreate. You then tried to argue with Ron that we should only have benefits for married people with couples then. I then said this would expand government and would cost more than it would benefit simply trying to ensure the right people got benefits, I also then pointed out, that married people without children tend to actually pay more in taxes (the marriage penalty as they call it) on the average. I pointed out that marriage transfers across the board could make it illegal for churches not to marry, unless they insert an exclusion for this, and I pointed to discrimination laws in WA with examples of shut down adoption agencies to show this does happen.
You then said that they deserve to be shut down if they don’t follow the law.
We can allow for both. Both can work. And you call my attempt of integration immoral.
Gays can have rights. Catholic adoption agencies can choose to adopt to only straight couples. Gay people can still get kids, and will have no problems getting them without the Catholic church. This way everyone gets their rights. Your social justice sciences have no place creating division intentionally. I also pointed out, when you and Ron implied that gay couples could have kids as well, that the amount of gay people compared to the amount of adoption children available, would take decades to provide the amount of children needed for gay couples to have as much children (If I recall it was close to a 100 years) that is not bigoted thought. That was not treating them like second class citizens.
There is no reason for us not to pass a gay rights law, you know, as it pertains to the needs of gay people, and gay marriage laws as it pertains to their needs.
Why the hell does this make me against gays?
I want a description of how specifically I wronged them?
September 27, 2016 at 2:27 pm
Ohio Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m concerned about Bob. He appears to be an older, lonely gentleman that spends his a lot of his time making long comments. Anybody want to contribute any suggestions to help Bob fill his time?
Here comes an example of why not to vote for democrats. I am all for torturing this …. until he talks and gives up his counterparts in this plot. Obama and Hilliary handcuff our interrogators and limit their actions, calling some inhumane. Compared to decapitation by our enemies, we are not doing anything inhumane.
I didn’t know that Insurance Journal commentators were an extension of the Alt+Right movement.
Well, that would be the WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? Also, you want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
How do you know the political affiliation of the Seal Team that caught Bin laden?
I know the political affiliation of the Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom, mic drop!
Bill Clinton was the same political affiliation as Obama, and he turned Bin Laden away when Syria offered him up years ago for attacking one of our naval ships. Maybe could have prevented 9-11, who knows?
You are clueless here. You don’t even know the basics, because Sudan is the nation rumored to have offered to turn him over in the most credible story. The fact checking groups, the national security advisor, the director of counterterrorism, and the 9/11 Commission all debunk you’re claim. In one case Clinton ordered the CIA to go after him, in another he ordered a strike and they missed by a few hours. There are at least 3 times plans were called off and it was revealed he was no longer there when the attack would have been carried out, and another when some intelligence officers claim he was, and others said the intelligence was not good.
Of course before Republicans rewrote history they were screaming that Clinton was just trying to “Wag the dog,” with his attacks because they were engaged in the Very Serious business of getting to the bottom of that blowjob. As usual with some posters here, this was a reference to a movie title, because anti-terrorism and national security issues should be based on bjs and fiction for one group of people.
However, when the CIA went to interrupt Bush on the longest vacation in presidential history, warning about imminent attacks in what the CIA official described as being designed to set off alarm bells, he told them they could go back and they had “covered their ass now.”
So yes, maybe 9/11 could have been stopped, by the guy who was actually president and ignored the threat. Also, during the transition when the counterterrorism staff told the administration terrorism, and specifically bin Laden was their biggest national security concern they Saif he was wrong, it was Iraq, aside from one noted idiot, Condoleezza Rice, who said it was Russia.
Maybe you are actually saying Republicans are so incompetent there was no chance we could get him once Clinton left and Bush took over, so it’s really Clinton’s fault?
I know the political affiliation of our Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
We know the political affiliation of our Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
I know the political affiliation of the Commander in Chief who ordered the mission. Boom! (mic drop)
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? Also, you want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
maybe you should preface your duplicate post with “all these conservative bots are trying to censor my god given right to free speech!! i thought this was america, not china!” just like Yogi did
-confused
You mean, Yogi AKA Deplorables AKA Mickey Dee?
Exactly like that! Although I’m only 70% sure Yogi is Agent. However, I’m 98% sure Deplorables is Agent.
I’m very confident that Yogi is not agent.
If agent is really creating new nick names all the time, and now has a new one in deplorables, why did he keep Yogi for years?
The personality, actions, and concept here does not match.
I will however say I do believe deplorables could be Agent.
Captain,
Why are you writing the same crap over when it gets hidden? It sucked the first time and it’s only going to suck the second time too!
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You want us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You’d like us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like them? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Let me just explain it to you how this is likely being misrepresented.
Let’s say we have a sample of people tortured. The studies themselves say the issue is that tortured people will say anything to stop torture, even if they don’t have information.
So, what if only 3 guys have information and you have 100 terrorists.
97 guys give false information to stop the torture. You go check to verify these 97 leads are false and they are.
The 3 however, indefinitely gave the information due to being tortured (after all, if they will LIE to STOP torture this means they will do ANYTHING including give info they have, and yes, as a man, I will tell you now, if I were tortured I WOULD FOR A FACT eventually give information unless I had a motivation like my wife and kids.
Then they can say: See? 97% of the information we received was false!
But that 3% from the people in the inner circle had information regarding a nuclear strike.
Oh well, we shouldn’t torture 97 people to save thousands.
It does not make us by concept as bad as our enemies because we torture for this obvious reason:
THE REASON AND MOTIVATION for the torture.
Not all things are the same. Not all torture is the same.
So to clarify further:
They then say “Well, we have proof they will lie and say anything to stop torture, and 97% of all cases we confirm are false information. So we can say that torture doesn’t give reliable information and doesn’t work.”
They are leaving out the core details. Torture did work. It’s why the 97 lied, to stop the torture.
The other 3 told the truth to stop the torture. So 100% of torture works in getting people to do what torture’s purpose is: Give in, give up, whatever information they have even if they don’t have any. Fact checking false information is easy, and if we fact checked false information they would be more afraid of what would happen after false information by the by.
When it comes to these people, these terrorists, if you really believe that people out there in a war torn nation are not afraid of being tortured, they aren’t afraid to ally themselves with a group when they know they will be destroyed if they do, you’re a fool. I have actually heard people like you argue this creates more terrorists.
Both a ha, and a ha.
Religious zealotry only goes as far as a tangible in the now benefit. It is rare for a human to think the promise of “Heaven” for murder and rape is enough. This is why until this point Al Quieda has been a smaller force. ISIS has strength not because they are being promised virgins and after life wealth (like Bin Laden style terrorists who were weaker). ISIS is strong because they give women to rape, money to spend, and other luxury items. And for these people, they like it. People as a whole on the darker side of the spectrum love immediate gratification.
As soon as you give someone like that immediate consequence instead of instant gratification,
They ditch the ideal like cowards.
Torture will scare these people. Torture will work on these people.
And as for the ethics: As soon as someone is enough of a zealot to launch an attack on our country’s people (not military soldiers like a standard country does) they are definitely cowards worthy of torture, and we can explain that difference to our “enemies” and “allies” and I’m sure they will understand.
However, the more likely number is something like this:
We capture about a thousand terrorists. We only manage to get 3 high ranking officials.
We semi torture 1000, find that 997 have no information and lie. We end torture on those. We focus on the 3 high ranking officials, they eventually give information leading to a high security risk.
Then they can say:
Only .003% of torture has been found to lead to any information of value.
You need to start looking in depth into what these studies really say.
Instead, you find someone who you believe to be morally superior, you create a reason for them to be morally superior (ergo why you brought ethics of torture into it, and they teach that into you intentionally)
And then you block out everyone else who sounds offensive (like you do me) and block out all debate on the issue without saying how un christian it is (ironic you call people this the most here and yet you claim how much religious zealotry is a tool, but you’re using it for your purpose aren’t you?) you say how evil it is, and how people “ought to act” as you recently said in regards to how “we” don’t act like x y and z recently, and then you toss people like that to the side like a zealot.
This is what my parents fought against in the 60’s. You are that in current day.
You are not a savior, you are a servant to the tyrants. The sooner my generation sees this the better.
Bob – I think your argument may be faulty based on an invalid initial assumption you are using.
Can you please cite your source where 3 out of 100 people who are tortured provide useful information? After all, didn’t the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture find:
*The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees
*The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness
*The CIA’s operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies
*The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques
I’m wondering where you got your 3/100 statistic from because your argument would be moot if the effective torture rate was really 0/100.
or 3 out of 1,000 people, whichever. I just don’t see how you can make the assumption that “3 people out of 1,000 will tell the truth when tortured” when the most recent analysis of torture numbers and their effectiveness has indicated otherwise.
Every bolded section you just wrote, I have already read.
I am taking guesses because the study as they presented it does not reveal this information I have mentioned. I gave examples of how information could be manipulated.
And, I might add, these are the same people who said only three people were tortured. So how did this study have a large sample to compare?
We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point.
And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.
“The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness”
Again, if they had a 95% ratio of false information, this would make sense, since the majority of terrorists do not have information. Only the high ranking ones do. The point in my numbers were not that the numbers were tested. My point is that logic dictates not all terrorists have high ranking information. Do you honestly believe that more than 5% of terrorists know the inner workings? You’re going to have to prove that.
“The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees”
Again, I have read this, and the study gives no effective means to proof on this.
I am pointing out an important concept, one that my question above highlights.
When torturing the majority of information you get will be false, whether because it takes a while to get good information, or because you’re talking to the wrong person.
In all likelihood, you will have an extremely low percentage of accurate information, but that information will be vital and will be the only way to potentially stop a 9/11. So the question is:
Are these terrorists not being tortured (and the concept) worth more than hundreds of thousands of lives when we consider world wide terrorist attacks and murders that aren’t defined as terrorism over now average of nearly 2 attacks a day for the last 30 years from Islamist terrorists?
There are always real ratios to consider, and what you put above does not consider those ratios.
It is about time that we stop freezing up on taking action due to PC concepts of moral high ground.
I have grown extremely sick of it.
These people are murdering children, decapitating them and putting them on spikes, Saddam himself actually killed more people than ISIS ever did, and somehow the public has forgotten this as well.
Rape, murder, etc. Child rapists (and all the terrorists in this faction are child rapists) do not deserve special protection from torture, which would in affect finally give them something to be afraid of the next time they think about putting their pecker into a girl aged 5-10, instead of thinking I’ll just sit in Gitmo and be just fine where the government can’t touch me and will in fact protect me.
If you believe that the concept of torture is more important than giving a viable deterrent to would be child rapists en mass, you have the problem of morality here, as well as Planet.
I have had it to high heaven with millennials leaving out this important section. The men are murdered, the women and children are taken as sex slaves to have more terrorist children.
And you focus more on the torture of these people, and many liberals even claim that more people will become child raping lunatics if we take this on. NO! Many more children will be raped by lunatics if we don’t take this on!
Torturing a child raping lunatic who might have information to save GOOD and INNOCENT PEOPLE is the priority! Not making sure a child raping lunatic is treated fairly.
These are NOT some innocent people who are being mistreated. Every type of torture they could receive they FULLY deserve.
And don’t give me that crap line about the “what about the innocent ones”. It is easy to make sure we have confirmation protocols for torture regarding terrorist activities that are strict.
I should clarify on this, initially these were the same people who supported the comment that only 3 detainees were known to have been tortured. Is the study regarding the three? I have not read the study in a while, you should source quote it so I can re go over it. As I recall, there was a very small sample that they referenced and they tried to say the torture was not related to information given in a way that was not believable. That in itself is not a study on torture. That was a bogus investigation that tried to say that the torture we did do didn’t give any good results.
In order to have studied this on a large basis they would need to do a lot more.
Confused, information can be manipulated, so instead of believing the torture report, a huge amount of literature from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and various other wars we should seriously consider Bob’s fake information and fantasy scenarios, just like we are supposed to do with how economic data, retirement plan, etc. God, what a joke.
So let me give you an example:
In college they teach false rape claims statistics. Did you take any courses that taught this?
A reporter did a study on this, and while colleges claim different sources, when you break into it all those sources were talking about the same study done 40 years ago and the testing measures were complete trash when it comes to the one they teach as being correct (2% being false). This study was incredibly poorly done.
And, the college studies throw out every single other study done that shows higher numbers and says why those numbers are not reliable. Some went as high as 60%, and they said why that couldn’t be reliable due to the women not being in certain scenarios.
If you disregard each study until you find one you shape the parameters to meet your conclusion, you can make a study to support any theory.
I was shocked to see how many theories were dismissed entirely instead of going over fixing what they saw to be the issues with known higher percentage studies and making them reliable.
When I see a study, due to this, and due to having broken down such studies on a regular basis,
I tend to lean toward where the study is total and complete B.S. and what would make a study accurate.
“Confused, information can be manipulated, so instead of believing the torture report, a huge amount of literature from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and various other wars we should seriously consider Bob’s fake information and fantasy scenarios, just like we are supposed to do with how economic data, retirement plan, etc. God, what a joke”
And instead of doing any critical thought to the validity of my comment and taking a look at the flaws of this research which you by the way have not provided sources for, you will just believe what fits the narrative of people who TOLD YOU what to think.
Let’s see the studies UW.
I’m waiting.
And UW:
I have personally seen people manipulate studies in professional universities. I am not inclined to believe a study just because it claims or anyone else claims, it is de facto.
You again focus on only studies you want to believe instead of directing flaws.
And then you say how ludicrous I am (character assaults) to disregard facts.
I don’t have time for you UW. Idiots like you don’t belong in college anyway. There are plenty of millennials in college debating the same as me. They all graduate. Are they just idiots who disregard science?
No. They question and inquire! That is the meaning of being a liberal, or it used to be.
Challenging the norms. If Einstein listened to idiots like you he would have never thought of relativity.
You think you’re the new and better generation. You’re not.
I AM YOUR AGE. If you didn’t catch recently I finally revealed I am a millennial.
You are a dime a dozen in college, and I can tell you are not that fresh out of it.
I am not surprised by people like you, but because people like you are so indoctrinated you are always surprised when people go against your norms. Hello UW, Mr. False Liberal, I will have none of it!
I will question, I will investigate, and this makes me INTELLIGENT.
UW:
1: What is the sample size:
2: What is the method of measurement?
3: Do you debate that only so many people will have high ranking information?
4: As such, how do we know who is high ranking and not? Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t.
5: As such, if we tortured what is the likelihood we are torturing someone who doesn’t know?
6: If they will admit anything to stop torture, doesn’t this show torture is effective in getting people to try and stop torture:
7: That being the case, and being the case that not all people will have information, is the sample size not relevant?
8: And that being the case, could you think of any realistic scenario where you tortured the right high ranking people with information more often than even 10% of the time?
9. By default in my scenario, you would then have 90% of all information incorrect.
10: If a study with a small sample, who was not torturing high ranking officials and was torturing people who did not have information came out, would it be reliable in light of 8? If they lied to stop torture and we didn’t get good information, given my ratios gone over it makes sense ratios would be low.
In what scenario, realistic study and what parameters, would you admit torture worked?
And I mean one we could replicate.
Human psychology is complicated. And you are talking as if you have the definite answer without weighing what could be wrong with the studies on whether or not torture works.
The social justice sciences are always this way.
They complicate everything.
Common sense also dictates the following:
You, and myself, under torture, would CERTAINLY give information about high ranking individuals if we had it. When people have fear, whether through pain or assets being lost or fun being lost, they always self preserve.
And most importantly UW:
WHY ARE YOU NOT ASKING 1-10 BEFORE YOU BELIEVE A STUDY???
Most researchers hear a study with the intent of proving it false, especially on issues like this.
This is the standard of peer review. I am shocked that my generation has turned peer review into the type of thing that people should be called ignorant for.
Denying the validity of something based on facts is ignorance? What school did you go to?
My questions are ignorance?
You are this much of a fool? Grow up!
Give me your numbers UW. I’m not going to listen to a study you can’t go over.
You don’t argue proper at all. Let’s go ahead and debate. I don’t want the conclusions. I want the numbers and the methods of weight.
I want to know how and by what measure you believe torture doesn’t work.
Itemize the sample size, the testing means, testing location, and the control parameters to make sure that we were testing the proper types of torture. I want to obviously in light of that to know the types of torture.
Do we have torture studies on the break down of the mental fortitude of certain techniques? How would we? What research was done on any of those techniques?
It is ludicrous you say that I am ignoring sound studies.
I am about common sense and facts and I am SICK of millennials like you that come in saying that conservatives are just ignorant hicks that don’t know how to think!
I live in a liberal city, the types you speak of here DO NOT EXIST here, yet conservatives do.
I am sick of your implications with regards to conservatives, and your commentary multiple times here of conservatives being rich white men who want to control women. I’m a thirty something year old Hispanic man you idiotic sorry excuse of a human being.
And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research. Do NOT come in here accusing me of being a fool and forcing me into your boxed labels of conservatives! I will mow you down in intellectual capacity and knowledge on laws I have actually reviewed which you have not!
And it is easy to tell you have not. When I go on my posts about the Lilly Ledbetter act you are oddly silent, my commentary about the gun laws Obama supported that definitely inserted gun control language that was first implemented in Australia before their gun control, you don’t know that info! You just mouth off about how conservatives are against even sound gun issues like background checks, when those plans I just mentioned Obama lied and said they were just expanded background checks. I can quote the laws. Do you want them? I gave links with the law wording including which republicans passed the gay discrimination bill in WA state with only a few amendments requiring a vote, and requiring an exclusion for libel in regards to religious commentary for criminal liability for talking about gay issues. Do you want that link again?
What say you on those issues? The ones I can prove the republicans had real reasons to reject, and the democrats clearly mislead people regarding? Just what the heck happened there UW? Was that just ignorant Bible thumping hicks?
Where were you when Obama resigned the worst parts of the patriot act, or when he removed Gadaffi from Libya, which evidence shows might not have been a good idea?
Where were you since he has been bombing the crud out of ISIS while you tried to say that republicans would carpet bomb? When they said they would bomb these people they would be no different than Obama.
I’m sick of idiots like you that don’t do their homework!
Where were you with the Ohio democrat who passed flight laws in the issue of Fed Ex vs UPS, and he said despite the fact that he passed federal regulations, he was an Ohio senator so no other states could have an opinion? He gave benefits to one particular flight carrier.
Where the hell were you then!?!? Huh?
Why don’t you freaking source quote some laws kid, until then GTFO as our generation would say.
You’re out of your league in debating skills, and you’re out of line in tactics!
Bob, stop with the insane rantings. You didn’t present studies, you presented a bullshit fictional scenario that goes against, as always with you (like with climate change, unemployment, retirement figures, etc), essentially all mainstream research. Furthermore, I actually cited something that wasn’t just created off the top of my head.
You bring up a bunch of well-rehearsed lines to shoot down studies, like the torture report, you don’t know about and haven’t read, but as you’ve proven over and over you don’t know ANYTHING about statistics. You don’t know confidence intervals and think most people can be significantly over the median for example. You are too clueless on anything other than right wing talking points, and fantastical scenarios, which you view as more credible than science, to even debate “proper”. How about the population of prisoners in US custody where 100% did not give information to stop an attack, but a source who wasn’t tortured have information that helped capture bin Laden, along with other techniques that aren’t illegal and immoral?
Also, saying “semi torture” is moronic.
How old is the earth? Were people created in their current form?
Observe, a republican gun control law that they have tried to pass.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/4751/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22gun%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1
It has been amended and is still in progress. What they usually fight on is small absurd things which I will give another link regarding, in which the democrats didn’t like this aspect.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/947?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22gun%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=2
The debate on this one is whether or not to allow them to use a public firing range.
“Bob, stop with the insane rantings. You didn’t present studies, you presented a bullshit fictional scenario that goes against, as always with you (like with climate change, unemployment, retirement figures, etc), essentially all mainstream research. Furthermore, I actually cited something that wasn’t just created off the top of my head. ”
You didn’t present studies. I want over potential problems with studies on torture. It is completely relevant. Debate my items, and provide your sources that address these items.
“You bring up a bunch of well-rehearsed lines to shoot down studies, like the torture report, you don’t know about and haven’t read, but as you’ve proven over and over you don’t know ANYTHING about statistics. You don’t know confidence intervals and think most people can be significantly over the median for example. You are too clueless on anything other than right wing talking points, and fantastical scenarios, which you view as more credible than science, to even debate “proper”. How about the population of prisoners in US custody where 100% did not give information to stop an attack, but a source who wasn’t tortured have information that helped capture bin Laden, along with other techniques that aren’t illegal and immoral?
Also, saying “semi torture” is moronic.
How old is the earth? Were people created in their current form?”
I used semi because of the government debating on what torture is. It is not moronic.
How old is the earth? Screw you. Again, you take this style where you say people who deny what you say believe the Earth is a certain age. No. That is incendiary in a way you don’t need to be. You may debate my facts, you may not call me a religious lunatic.
I haven’t read the study? That’s funny, I mentioned having read the study but I could not recall it so I asked for a copy of it. But instead of providing that and dealing with facts you prefer to call me an idiot. Well rehearsed commentary? How about well though out?
I literally don’t know ANYTHING about statistics? Again, this is your issue. I can break down the studies in regards to false rape, do you really want me to quote 10 studies here right now? And I do this often! You instead rely on the study of who you believe is credible and then call me an idiot. Absurd. I don’t have time for you!
Debate the facts I put here on 1-10 on how your studies apply the facts.
Or can you?
2nd link summary: Democratic sponsored amendment – sought to prohibit an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm by the Gun Control Act from using a public target range.
Voting summary:
Democrat: 159 Yes – 11 No
Republican: 2 Yes – 233 No
This really is your problem UW. You say republicans don’t support ANY gun control. And now you say I don’t know ANY statistics.
When Hillary called us a basket of deplorables she revealed a bit of the goal of democrats that you follow very well.
Their goal is to make anyone who doesn’t fit into their norma against ALL morality.
Republicans didn’t have ANY health care plans? Funny, I’ve listed them.
They don’t support ANY gun control?
Funny, I’ve listed them too.
What your party does is lie on this again, and again, and again, and again, until people think republicans don’t support anything, and then use that to pass everything they can.
It is dishonest. I just gave examples with the Lilly Ledbetter Act, Gun Control, Gay discrimination laws, CRA laws vs CRA regs VS CRA loans, and how charter laws are set up for banking companies, where the exceptions lie for mergers, sales, etc, and how that could affect housing loans. But of course, because I am not one of the democrats, it is just well rehearsed crap and not a study.
There comes a point when someone sets up parameters that it merits portions of study and thought.
And I find it more than funny that you say I don’t know how to use any statistics considering how obsessed with them I am and how often I practically beg for you to give them and all you can do is call me names in reply of how I don’t believe in facts and I believe the world is 10,000 years old! I’ve told you probably about 50 times I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATION THEORY OR THE 10,000 YEARS BUT YOU KEEP ASKING THE @#%@#%ING QUESTION DON’T YOU??
Because that’s your goal and narrative.
Millennials will eventually kick people like you to the curb.
“2nd link summary: Democratic sponsored amendment – sought to prohibit an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm by the Gun Control Act from using a public target range.
Voting summary:
Democrat: 159 Yes – 11 No
Republican: 2 Yes – 233 No”
What is your point Confused? I said they fight over trivial issues.
Republicans clearly don’t see a threat in using a public firing range. I don’t either.
So because democrats don’t want criminals to use a gun ever, not even in a safe location, they won’t pass a bill?
My point is the republicans often have plans that are shot down for silly reasons like these. That is a democrat amendment, meaning we won’t pass this unless you add this silly section, and republicans by default are saying we will pass this without that amendment. The republicans voted against an added amendment and that makes the democrats the block if they refuse to pass the bill without such an absurd amendment.
However, the democrats are the only ones who have inserted wording that said you had to have a reason to own a gun.
And as for you UW:
I just refreshed myself on the study and presented the concerns that match up exactly with what I said were likely issues (sample size and how they determine whether it yielded information). And the ones that could have lead to information, there is no method of weight other than “We don’t know for sure if the torture is why they said it, we tortured them of course and they said it, but we won’t count that because they may have said it otherwise”. That is not science. That is disregarding the ones who gave information and were tortured and creates a scenario in which they will never accept information that was given from someone tortured because they believe it would have been given otherwise.
Also, my other point still stands, especially with low sample sizes:
You will always have issues with torturing people who just don’t have information. They don’t just share attack information with everyone. So you will for a fact torture people who have nothing and will thus make a large number of people who give no information compared to those who do.
So choke that down the next time you say I don’t use facts and studies you freaking immoral brat.
Bob, I commented on the CIA Torture report you talked about when your idiotic fantasy was shot down by Confused. You posted pointless general guidelines that can be a problem with any study, but no actual evidence or points that exist outside of your fantasy, but of course demand we defeat your fantasy–you are literally insane. The CIA report found torture to be ineffective and do more harm than good. People know the more they talk the longer it is until they are put back underwater, shocked, beaten, etc., so they say anything even if they don’t know anything. This information then has to be researched and wastes time. If they create a scenario that seems more dangerous than the actual real-world intelligence gathered by effective means, the real intelligence is ignored.
These studies have shown the physiological conditions people are in while being tortured actually make it more difficult, and less likely to give information. The stress affects the brain in a manner that limits immediate access to long-term memory, significantly impairs memory overall, and makes getting information more difficult if not impossible. Also, limiting oxygen to the brain does basically the same thing. It didn’t work; you want it because you are into authoritarianism and a fantasy world.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16934776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25660759
You are whining for clinical studies, which cannot exist except maybe in your deranged fantasy world where we torture people for science (kind of like Nazis I guess–hey, another fascist movement aligned in thought with you, shocking!), and then explaining away the real-world evidence we have saying things like:
“We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point. And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.”
Again, putting your fantasies and imagination ahead of reality, because you are a hardcore ideologue.
“If you believe that the concept of torture is more important than giving a viable deterrent to would be child rapists en mass, you have the problem of morality here, as well as Planet.”
Many people believed that after WWII, luckily the world overall disagreed, and executed many of them. You are simply a far, far right-wing person with no respect for humanity. You support authoritarianism. You argued that terrorism is worthwhile if 97% of the people being tortured don’t have information. This doesn’t even touch on the undeniable fact that it makes it more dangerous for our military when captured in foreign war zones.
As for your idiotic whining about my other questions regarding the age of the earth and evolution, you cannot incessantly whine about statistical methods you don’t understand, sticking to data, and then support 2 positions that basically throw out all science. This isn’t your fantasyworld, and you don’t get to decide what scientific evidence is up for debate and what scientific evidence we have to ignore, because, ONCE AGAIN, you believe something.
You simply, straight-up, do not believe or accept science.
“I literally don’t know ANYTHING about statistics? Again, this is your issue. I can break down the studies in regards to false rape, ”
No, genius, that is the point. If you don’t know how statistics work you can summarize what other have written, but BY DEFINITION you CANNOT break them down coherently, accurately, or competently, as you have proven.
You are completely losing it. You have no knowledge on anything.
“Do NOT come in here accusing me of being a fool and forcing me into your boxed labels of conservatives!”
I’m not accusing you, I’ve exposed you. You are a far right-wing conservative; nothing you have ever stated would prove otherwise. You claim to be a moderate and a libertarian, which are contradictory positions. You simply refuse to be grouped with the other people who believe exactly what you believe.
I will mow you down in intellectual capacity and knowledge on laws I have actually reviewed which you have not!”
Still waiting.
“And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research.”
Yeah, so am I. Sadly, I care about what random people think about your research about as much as I care about your various fantasy worlds. I know you don’t know shit about economics; have to create false numbers for every single variable to justify your retirement plan, or any other economic plan you comment on; don’t believe in evolution, don’t believe in science; don’t know statistics, and exist in what I think might be a total alternate reality. Or, maybe they just want you to shut … up, like every thinking-person here.
UW:
I just have to comment further here on your ignorance and bigotry when you say that 10,000 year comment.
Instead of arguing any topic that has anything to do with this conversation you instead apply a label to avoid any debate and to also state why I should not be listened to.
You already know and I have already said I do not subscribe to 10,000 year old Earth’s. You saying that again and again is bigoted and I have no idea how you don’t realize that.
Take what you have been told about what is inappropriate to do to one race or belief (gays and blacks) and apply it EQUALLY to all others (Christians).
Ben Shapiro makes a point of saying about millennials that do this:
You must stop fact, and address the moral high ground they are then immorally claiming they have. If someone uses these dishonest debate tactics you don’t stay on the topic of debate, you immediately call them trash for it and say why and how. Then you go back to the topic. If they still insist on doing it you again and again point out they are trash and are immoral, and then you go back to debate the topic. Never ignore the assaults because as it so happens, it works with millennials.
UW:
This is similar to how for months, and you will likely do it again, you have claimed how I am immoral and want to kill Muslims.
Each time I have corrected you, and attempted to correct what Trump actually supported, and each time you go into this fight.
It’s a winning fight on the left. Just keep yelling out racism etc, and the mistake is that people don’t realize that millennials, as much as they say otherwise, try more to be sensitive to the possibility of racism than they do facts.
As such, my reply each time will be forget you, you’re immoral for even suggesting that I want to kill Muslims, it is ludicrous, insane, and out of line, and then I will go back to the topic of facts.
You don’t get to just run around calling people genocidal maniacs while claiming that every scandal on your side’s end is just tin foil hat paranoia.
GENOCIDAL EARTH DESTROYING CHILDREN STARVING MIDDLE CLASS OPPRESSING GAY HATING WOMAN DOMINATING EVIL PEOPLE
Is paranoia. And that is what you call the right. It isn’t ok.
The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
While you claim travesties in all angles, you then go around crying about every little thing the right tries to hold you accountable for.
Shut up. Grow up. Learn to debate.
Bob has gone crazy again!! Getting crushed again has blown his millenial mind.
>The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
I agree. She should have said, “Pieces of crap” or something similar. 2/3 think Obama is a Muslim. They are for the most part trash & deplorable.
Actu:
“>The basket of deplorables comment should be turned on it’s head and revealed for the truth in what the left is attempting to do.
I agree. She should have said, “Pieces of crap” or something similar. 2/3 think Obama is a Muslim. They are for the most part trash & deplorable.”
Even if someone thought this it would not make them pieces of crap. The fact that they think it is not out of left wing considering Obama’s background.
I don’t share the belief myself, I think it’s fairly obvious Obama is too arrogant and doesn’t actually have a religion he follows other than his own personal whims. It is highly doubtful there is a religion he “submits to” instead of “participates in”.
And you just made my point. Regardless of whatever poll you have seen (likely targeted to cities they already know have the believe Obama is a Muslim, and then they disregarded the others. I have seen this happen on many issues, and yet I cannot find conservatives other than one offs who actually believe it. If it were 2/3rd’s, I would personally know some and I do not) you have found reasons to dehumanize the alternate side as your leader has. While you will say Trump does this as well,
There are no campus riots being taken part en masse by republicans. Republicans are not shutting down liberal debate on campus. They are not getting known professors fired. There are no republican professors saying they believe macro aggression is an appropriate reply to micro aggression. I gave links to that but it isn’t showing up. I use this argument for you, likely a millennial, because you would do well to understand the corruption in your age group and what was done is literally the worst type of corruption by liberals. There is not attempt to indoctrinate you by the right in college universities.
There are no Trump protestors at Hillary campaigns. There are no Trump protestors at Bernie campaigns.
There are not repeated false reports on sexual assault (this happened not long ago when a lady screamed a Trump supporter touched her breast on camera before punching a guy in the face and immediately getting pepper sprayed. Instead of focusing on her clear lying about sexual assault and her punching they focused on the pepper spray retaliation) or older women accusing 70 year old blind Trump supporters of attacking them, or the false Rolling Stones Rape narrative, or things like that, in the mainstream College campus that is being used to indoctrinate kids.
While you call us fascist, your side is partaking in unbelievable actions to shut down the other side, and free speech, and violent actions encouraged by professors and faculty.
Deplorables? No. We aren’t deplorables because of what we think and believe. But your side (not the kids and you but your actual politicians which is worse) are for what you do in the academia.
Also Actu:
I have not been crushed. I imagine that UW has presented more “conclusions” and “opinions” than he has what I have, which is dissection of the data.
I’ve been crushed? I pointed out the number of tortured people studied. I pointed out as well I might add, common sense. If you’re tortured you will give up information. I can think like both an atheist because I was one, and someone who believes in God because I do now.
Let’s go on this point real quick:
In the absence of a God, what goes above yourself? Not much. How easy are you to break based on self perseverance? Extremely. Common sense without a God: Torture will work.
In the existent of a God you are either with him or against him. If you are with him he will help you with not giving information. If you are against him he will not. Just believing you are with a false God will not create a protection from self preservation. This is exactly why indoctrination works from false religions. They all attempt to make you feel like someone is protecting you. It only goes so far, and very small amount of people will believe it entirely against their own being. So, in the case of God existing, torture would work.
Back on topic though:
I gave the numbers on this. I showed that they disregarded when people gave information post torture because they don’t believe there is evidence that the torture caused it. Why?
According to the studies, because all the OTHER people gave false information which means the majority of information will be false, combined with some social science about we don’t know if we had not tortured them if they wouldn’t have given the same based on people doing so we didn’t torture.
There is no science that proves that. It is a guess.
There is no scenario in which they will therefore admit that torture is the cause, there is no sample large enough (as torture does not regularly occur, and there are no controlled studies as such) etc.
I have not been crushed. And the fact that you say “crushed” shows what you view as important. You are a tyrant, like a football team you are addicted to the win. Not whether or not someone or something is correct.
“And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.” -bob
That’s the problem I have with your argument. Your opinion on what the statistics may be is driving your actionable items. If I imagine 0 people will reveal their terrorist acts when tortured, then torture is totally unnecessary because it doesn’t work, ever.
What’s the real effective rate of torture based on a statistically significant sample size? We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.
Is there ANYTHING out there which confirms “we gathered this information SOLELY by torture and that info saved lives”? They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.
If if there is not even ONE documented case which proves “torture lead to this new information and this information allowed us to save lives” then your 3/1,000 opinion is false and your justification of torture is based on an invalid assumption of its effectiveness.
“And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.” -bob
That’s the problem I have with your argument. Your opinion on what the statistics may be is driving your actionable items. If I imagine 0 people will reveal their terrorist acts when tortured, then torture is totally unnecessary because it doesn’t work, ever.
What’s the real effective rate of torture based on a statistically significant sample size? We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.
Is there ANYTHING out there which confirms “we gathered this information SOLELY by torture and that info saved lives”? They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.
If if there is not even ONE documented case which proves “torture lead to this new information and this information allowed us to save lives” then your 3/1,000 opinion is false and your justification of torture is based on an invalid assumption of its effectiveness.”
No. My statistics on what would be issues with a sound study, you lack a sound study.
That opinion I just mentioned must have a degree of validity by default. The issue is we don’t have a study to see how much, and your studies DO NOT ADDRESS THIS therefore they cannot be taking it into consideration, and therefore they cannot be valid studies.
My 1-10 goes over all of this. We do not have sound study into torture that disproves it’s existence, and my issue is where you bolded people who said there was no evidence of torture working with clown parade level of study, low test samples, not considering what percentage of the people they are torturing could possibly have information, not adjusting the delta for that, etc.
Use your freaking head, and not your emotional conjecture.
Also, get this UW moron off my rear end. If I sound discontent with you please note I have been on the better side until this jack off came in here.
So I apologize in advance, but really I don’t need to be rode like Seattle’s Slew.
“They found 0 cases in the CIA report on torture you read, and you can go as far back Beccaria in 1764 to find reports of how ineffective torture really is.”
According to which measurement?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210-story.html
“In some cases, investigators found no relationship between the claimed success and any information provided by the detainee.”
This line concerns me.
“In other cases, the CIA inaccurately stated that unique information was acquired from a CIA detainee as a result of the interrogations, when the intelligence was either acquired earlier or was available from other sources, according to the report.”
This line concerns you.
The first line, is what I mentioned I saw in college in regards to false rape allegations, in which they disregarded every measure that was upwards of 60% until they concluded it was 3%, for similar reasons to what this says.
They said that the women were not investigated by a certain type of social worker for rape, and therefore the bias they had and social pressures were not taken into consideration. They would after all only feel safe talking to a social worker.
You do realize the only conclusion you can draw if that is true…Is that in pressure talking about rape, women lie and say rape was false, correct? In excess of 90% of the time to dwindle it form 60% down to 3%.
I have issues with studies that say “Well we can’t prove that the torture yielded results conclusively so we will toss out these 20 cases” and then they intentionally put one beside it that they know everyone will agree is bad information (obviously intelligence gleaned before torture doesn’t prove torture).
Also note the sample size:
“In all, 39 detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques between 2002 and 2008, the investigation found.”
39!!! Do you have any idea what the odds are that they had the correct 39? A sample size of 39 is not appropriate at all!
And you say “multiple studies” have shown “zero” incidents.
If out of 39, 20 were deemed to be inconclusive because they don’t know for certain that torture yielded results OR information was gleaned before hand, I WANT THOSE SEPARATED. Maybe the fact that they are combined is intentionally misleading, but moreover, if it were even half, that would be 10 out of 39 that may have yielded results but they threw it out because it was not conclusive.
At what point do we establish the torture had an affect if we just say “we don’t know if they would have given the information without torture”?
What measure of weight would establish that?
Again, what is the sample size, what is the method of measurement for what did not yield results? And this study doesn’t cover it with any reliability whatsoever, and in fact supports what I have said.
Confused,
Can you now see why I have problems with the PC movement methods of silence and power?
Can you really tell me obnoxious idiots in College who shut down debate similar to how UW is now, is not a serious issue with millennials?
Did I not just adequately make my case? One is free to disagree, but instead I have people making implications that I don’t take studies and facts seriously, because I am questioning the reliability based on the method of measurement, the science available on the issue, the reliability of said science, and then my common sense problem areas? (Which are not opinion. They would be problem areas the number is debatable but we know for a fact only certain people have information so you would have to torture people who didn’t that gave false information and weed through it. This existence of false info from people who don’t have it does not disprove the reliability of torture).
I cannot have a debate on these issues without this happening.
On the alternate side however, in campuses the liberal left has debated without challenge on these issues regarding torture and have basically told kids the jury is out on it. When you go to debate and everyone agrees with you, and when someone doesn’t you turn the debate into things that have nothing to do with the topic, there is an issue.
Conservative debate needs to happen, and idiots like UW, and the issue with the millennials just following instead of questioning, is a serious one. The probability of a personality like that becoming indoctrinated to a high level, is high, and that is dangerous. The only possible solution is to move into free debate.
“Can you now see why I have problems with the PC movement methods of silence and power?
Can you really tell me obnoxious idiots in College who shut down debate similar to how UW is now, is not a serious issue with millennials?”
Funny how big a problem being PC is to you guys, until anybody says anything you disagree with. My comment was deleted, because people like you complain. I’ve never done the same. Why is “College” capitalized? I’ve never shut down debate, and none of my posts are based in fantasy. Your problem is that you have no ability to discern reality and good sources from fantasy and BS.
“And everyone around me, liberal and conservative alike are astonished by my level of research”
I am astounded too, but not in a good way.
“I have had it to high heaven with millennials leaving out this important section. The men are murdered, the women and children are taken as sex slaves to have more terrorist children.”
A lot of people held these abhorrent beliefs in WWII, and thankfully they were tried, convicted and executed for their atrocities. Torture will not stop any of the things you mention, and will probably make them worse. It certainly makes it more dangerous for our military members when they are captured.
I commented on the CIA Torture report you talked about when your idiotic fantasy was shot down by Confused. You posted pointless general guidelines that can be a problem with any study, but no actual evidence or points that exist outside of your fantasy. The CIA report found torture to be ineffective and do more harm than good. People know the more they talk the longer it is until they are put back underwater, shocked, beaten, etc., so they say anything. If they make up BS stories, those have to be investigated too, and waste time investigating actual intelligence.
These studies have shown the physiological conditions people are in while being tortured actually make it more difficult, and less likely to give information. The stress affects the brain in a manner that limits immediate access to long-term memory, significantly impairs memory overall, and makes getting information more difficult if not impossible. Also, limiting oxygen to the brain does basically the same thing. It didn’t work; you want it because you are into authoritarianism and a fantasy world.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16934776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25660759
As for your whining about my other questions regarding the age of the earth and evolution, you cannot incessantly whine about statistical methods you don’t understand, sticking to data, and then support 2 positions that basically throw out all science.
“and attempted to correct what Trump actually supported, and each time you go into this fight.”
You mean justified, as you are doing here, because you are an authoritarian. He said we have to “take out their families,” and you completely ignore the context, and say he did not mean kill them. It makes no sense. You are in the absolute minority on reading it that way, as you are on seemingly every single topic. You can write this for months on end, and nothing will change, because it is an astoundingly stupid argument.
You whine and ask for evidence, and then dismiss it because it is not a clinical study, something which is not possible now, but explain away actual evidence, instead relying on your imagination:
“We don’t have a large study on torture, and that is my point.
And if we did, I imagine it would go similar to what I just presented.”
An absolute fantasy world holds more credence to you than actual real-world results. It is absolutely clownish. However, for some reason you think this is a devastating debate. I am not interested in debating your fantasy world, which coincidentally is the only place you can ‘smack me’ or perpetrate any of the physical violence or non-physical whippings you have constantly threatened.
Every comment you make is bordering on, or engaging in outright hate speech, whether it is liberals, millenials, Muslims, etc.
“We don’t know, so we can’t posit that torture is saving thousands of lives or if we’re merely torturing people to get false or misleading information.”
But, since we don’t know, and therefore cannot know how much it is working, we should ignore the CIA Report, ignore the preponderance of testimony from POWs in dozens of countries over decades, and torture people, because of what YOU imagine. This is a STUPID ARGUMENT that you cling to despite it being disturbing in how illogical it is. That is one of the hundreds of examples of why I oftentimes use the term “pseudointellectual”.
Bob:”39!!! Do you have any idea what the odds are that they had the correct 39? A sample size of 39 is not appropriate at all!”
Clueless. This is what I’m getting at with your idiocy when it comes to statistics. You are incompetent. 30 is LITERALLY the TEXTBOOK generally accepted sample size minimum. 39 is higher than that, in case you try to do the math yourself. Yes, it can vary… and I bet I can guess your position! But, this would have relatively few variables, and you don’t know this, medians, or basic stats so you clearly have no valid thoughts on Gaussian methods. Every novella you post here is littered with errors. Pseudo… Something.
Deposit long uninformed rant ignoring all of reality below, please.
Mark A. Costanzo, Ph.D. Professor Ph.D., University of California did a study on this, comparing what little info we had. I know you will use what he says to say that torture doesn’t work, but the point here is getting past his conclusion and instead weighing why he is saying this.
“And, even in cases where torture may have preceded the
disclosure of useful information, it is impossible to know whether less coercive
forms of interrogation might have yielded the same or even better results.”
Google the study because my posts with links aren’t showing up and I don’t want to risk this one not being shown.
This is what they usually default to, due to the exact problem I mentioned before. They say the following things, exactly like I spelled it out:
Item 1: They say that torture produces inaccurate information since they will say anything to avoid being tortured. They then compare the percent of false information
Item 2: They say how many people in history agreed with them (with studies that were not controlled, and often we are talking centuries old)
Item 3: Because they can say Item 1, they focus on how often people only say information to stop being tortured. You can sift through that information easily today. If it is wrong, you might be tortured worse. At some point, this is sure to stop, especially becuase of Item 1. If they will say anything to stop pain, if they know that if they lie it will cause more, eventually they won’t give more false information. They may try, but they will be figured out.
Now, an interesting point here and I will post a link on it.
For you Confused: There is a study which shows information was given. They also try to twist it, but it seems they do not divulge the possibility that the 3-17% of the information they got that was correct, is because only 3-17% of the people had information to give.
“But the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse (an exceptional high). Most of the time, the torturers were unable to get any statement whatsoever. ”
Google that line and you will find the article. I accidentally said 17%.
The issue with them condemning this study is that they said from those years they only got that amount total. This means they didn’t say why torture was done, to whom, if it were to convicts of internal crimes or external (like spies vs local murders, if it included local murders self preservation would kick in for them not to confess, so they aren’t hung.).
But it does show that torture showed numbers of accurate information.
Confused,
Your argument has been that there is not one example, I will challenge you with the following:
If you believe that, you have not done the due diligence on this, and if your side is stating that, they are lying.
Given what I said, do you not concede the only possibility is the people saying torture has never been proven to work (leftists in the government) must be by default lying or misleading based on ignorance?
And if that is true, the republicans who present this information who are shamed and shown as bad, are they not perhaps due some leniency if they are drawing these conclusions based on what I’m saying?
Which party would be more morally reprehensible on this matter? One that says there is “no” evidence without diligence or through lying, or one that says it is “possible” torture will work and help?
I guess that is subjective, but to me, when I see my age group buying into the lefts ideals at a rate of 75-85%, I tend to get pissed at the one who is winning the war. 50-50 should be happening, and in any case, this moral battle as actu and UW make it should not be occurring.
While I am being called psychotic, and morally evil, and complicit with the torture of innocents.
Isn’t it funny how when you apply common sense the studies make sense UW?
I said you might torture 97 people who don’t have information and 3 do.
And then the study I had varied from 3-14%. They gave false information at times, but ultimately, they cracked. And moreover: These people are not considering the likelihood that the person they are torturing does not have the information they are torturing for.
As I said before, they are taking the obviously low amount of people who have high ranking information into no consideration at all, and are instead saying it only works 3-14% of the time!
Perhaps in the 1700’s we didn’t have good enough intel to know who we were torturing for information, as a side comment. But on point, let’s say we capture 1000 extremist ISIS folks during war.
And let’s say it is 3%. 30 would give relevant information to saving lives. It these 30 had relevant information it is likely that only so many are duplicity. In other words, these are probably mulitple attack methods. In a year, there are an average of over 1 attack/s per day, with tens of thousands of deaths if we count just the terrorism. If we however count the attacks on the nations themselves, this instead comes out to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
If we stopped even one of the major city attacks through intel, we would save tens of thousands of lives, but wait, remember how I said it would have duplicates? Instead, we may end up stopping 3-5. And if we were seriously involved in the war over there, this would be 30,000-100,000 saved lives.
And because you want to be nice to 1,000 rapists, children murdering, evil pieces of trash, you are willing to let those people die, and allow for people to be displaced and live lives in fear.
There is a video online that shows Afghanistan and Iran in the 70’s before a cultural take over by extreme Muslims, and then after. Go google that. It is the Muslim faith for one, but for two, you in America make sure to monitor and hold the Christian faith accountable for all their bigotry and sins, and have accused them as responsible for slavery (BULL I might add). You won’t hold them accountable for their domination in the middle east?
And you think you have moral high ground? How dare you. You have no high ground.
“And if we were seriously involved in the war over there, this would be 30,000-100,000 saved lives.”
Even pretending your idiotic fantasy world had a shred of truth to it, which the actual studies and historic testimony, contradict but of course don’t count, that is fewer then the innocents killed and destroyed in your war in Iraq. So yes, you are immoral.
In my opinion, if you KNOW the person has credible information, go ahead and use whatever means necessary to obtain the information. You cannot just go and torture people hoping they have or think they may have credible information.
Ron,
As I stated above, there will always be a filter but you are likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, these numbers are likely to be high.
You can know they are likely to know information. The government would not simply torture people for the sake of it.
However, the people who have no information are not then subjected to anything they don’t deserve, as long as one makes sure that only people with extremely credible information are tortured. For example people we have pictures of attending meetings with high ranking officials. Not for example someone who has lived in the U.S. for ten years that we have no information regarding.
We can agree the government has made errors here (Not Bush W’s fault so don’t even go there). Changes need to be made, but what doesn’t need to happen is dishonest debate on whether torture works with manipulated statistics that are designed to trigger people and win elections and nothing more.
Quick reply before tomorrow – bob, I understand your points on the CIA study. Do you happen to know of any verified occasions where torture lead to new information which avoided a terrorist act? Not even a study – anything that could be source checked to confirm we could all agree there was at leastvthat we know of one specific occasion of torture “working”?
Mobile reply error above.
…there was at least one specific occasion where torture was effective and not just more conjecture?
That goes against your previous comment made today where you were fine with only 3/100 knowing anything. Please be consistent when advocating for the torture of innocent people.
“That goes against your previous comment made today where you were fine with only 3/100 knowing anything. Please be consistent when advocating for the torture of innocent people.”
No. It doesn’t. It goes exactly in line with it.
I am not advocating for the torture of innocent people. And you are trash for saying that in order to make the debate go away from facts and instead into your own self righteous zealotry.
I said that unfortunately the numbers will never be perfect.
And when I mentioned you might have 97 people who know nothing to 3 people who do, I specifically went over that this number was regarding confirmed captured terrorists.
The issue was whether or not they had the information, not whether or not they were innocent.
That is why I separately confirmed here that you will always have errors. There is no such thing as a program that won’t have errors. It is also why I said:
“However, the people who have no information are not then subjected to anything they don’t deserve, as long as one makes sure that only people with extremely credible information are tortured. For example people we have pictures of attending meetings with high ranking officials. Not for example someone who has lived in the U.S. for ten years that we have no information regarding. ”
This sounds contradictory, but it’s not. When I say extremely credible information in the second line I am not referring to information to be obtained, I’m referring people we have extremely credible information to believe they are terrorists, pictures etc.
And again, you are the extreme one here, not Trump. You are the one stopping progress.
Confused,
Yes. I do. By your own study’s admission and measure there are 20 of which an unnamed amount cannot be definitively committed to getting information (in other words they were tortured but the CIA won’t admit that was the reason they gave information)
It was divided into two groups, people they couldn’t confirm the torture was the reason behind the information, and people that were tortured after they gave it.
This means by default people who were tortured gave information.
There is not going to be a study that says they gave it due to torture, and I already explained why.
They will always say that it cannot be definitive. Go back to your own link and read the 500 page report if you want to see for yourself if they divide out those two numbers. As for me, I’m not taking that much time into this. It would take me potentially hours, which I already do too much of as it is.
It occurs to me you are too triggered to know what I meant even when I explained it:
The number of people that will unfortunately be high is the number of confirmed terrorists who do not have information compared to the number of confirmed people who do not have information (97 to 3 example)
The amount of people who will be tortured who are innocent is not something I went over in this link in direct numbers. I did direct it indirectly by saying we need to make sure the people we torture have evidence, including pictures etc that they are or could be involved with the high ranking officials to make sure we don’t torture people who are not terrorists.
At no point did I say “I am for torturing innocent people”.
None. You cannot make that inference simply because it is possible that an innocent person may be tortured. You are free to that belief, you are free to bring it up as a concern.
You are not free to say that anyone who supports torture is therefore for the torture of innocents. By that extension, I can blame you for the people who have died because we have not been able to gather information from terrorists due to you being against torture that may reveal that information and save lives.
In the former, you are asking for perfection in what cannot be a perfect world (that no one innocent gets tortured). In the latter, we are stating what is a highly likely result of torture (Saving lives) and you are stating that you cannot know that lives are saved so we must instead be for torture to support it. If one believes that torture has results, by default they are not for torture of innocents. They are for saving lives.
This type of behavior is common when millennials debate and it is not at all ok.
This is similar to the abortion debate. Either you are for some absurd theory that calls a baby part of the mother’s autonomy or you are against the mother.
No. There is a such thing as being for life of the child, without being against the mother, and in fact being pro life for the two of them.
But instead, you paint out the people against your issues as deplorables. Ergo why that comment is something that reveals a lot about your side. Unlike zealots who are cast out on the right, and dismissed as whack jobs, your rejects are winning you party nominations while openly stating and it being AGREED what they say (as opposed to Trump) things such as the deplorables comment. People actually agree with Hillary on that statement.
On the right, the party has criticized the heck out of Trump for anything he says that is wrong.
Perhaps your party and their people need to be better about inward reflection.
Clarification:
Dishonest debate from politicians to trigger people and win elections and nothing more. I don’t take debate from people as a whole on this issue with concerns as dishonest debate in general, except for people like UW.
Your comment in this section is reasonable. So our confused. I apologize if I’m riled up. UW is just being annoying and I’m at wit’s end.
And me, and Confused, and Planet, and every single person who bases their debate and points on reality instead of bull—- studies created in their head.
Well, that would be the absolute WORST way to obtain ACCURATE information. Do you think our soldiers give up accurate detail when they are tortured? You’d like us to be more like our enemies when it comes to interrogation methods? How else do you want us to be like those deplorables? Remember, it was a democrat who got Bin Laden. President Obama says you’re welcome.
Bob–
Seek psychiatric help…There’s no shame in it, from someone who’s been there. I’m serious, man…This stuff should not get you this upset.
I do sincerely wish you the best.
I have said nothing here that implies I need mental help. I have not even sworn this time around.
Telling someone they are a brat, etc, as they try to call you a murderer, a torturer of the innocent, an idiot who believes in the 10,000 year earth theory, is not insanity.
What is however literal bullying here, is what you just did.
You didn’t take part in the debate, you took part in a jab.
Do you understand that? And for that, I will borrow from Ben Shapiro, and call you two things:
A morally bankrupt bully.
Trash.
If you have problems with that, and then come back saying how much I insult, please default to all my previous comments where I go over what different types of insults are including their intended purpose.
Your intended purpose here is the reason why it turns to bullying.
Bob–
I am many things, but a bully I am not. Calling me morally bankrupt and trash is also not necessary. My intent was not to insult you by suggesting you should seek mental help; if you see I said “as someone who has been there.” Yes, Bob, I have been regularly visiting a psychologist for years to discuss things in my life. I feel no shame in stating that, as it’s part who I am.
My point was that this kind of thing should absolutely not get you as upset as it does. I, and other readers of this forum, have seen you rant at length at a bunch of people you have never met and likely never will, and it’s concerning. I didn’t bring up any insults, your cursing at anyone or anything else.
A few years ago, some people turned what should be an honest, intellectual discussion forum about the INSURANCE INDUSTRY into a place to vent about their political leanings. That’s not what this should be about. It’s at the point where a lot of people have stopped commenting or even reading the comments because of this. I’m not pointing the finger solely at you or any one person here.
Please accept my sincerest apology as I did not mean to offend, and all things considered should not have commented in the first place. Whether you choose to accept my apology is completely up to you, at any rate I do wish you well.
“I am many things, but a bully I am not. Calling me morally bankrupt and trash is also not necessary. My intent was not to insult you by suggesting you should seek mental help; if you see I said “as someone who has been there.” Yes, Bob, I have been regularly visiting a psychologist for years to discuss things in my life. I feel no shame in stating that, as it’s part who I am. ”
I am not shaming you about that statement. Calling you morally bankrupt and trash is necessary. It’s called consequence for calling someone psychotic. If you are going to a psychiatrist you are not the psychiatrist qualified to make statements on my mental health, and doing so is completely out of line.
“My point was that this kind of thing should absolutely not get you as upset as it does. I, and other readers of this forum, have seen you rant at length at a bunch of people you have never met and likely never will, and it’s concerning. I didn’t bring up any insults, your cursing at anyone or anything else.”
At what measure and point do you consider me to be completely upset? That I am passionate on the issue? That I post coherent posts and look it up a lot? That I get ticked when someone constantly calls me a murderer? I don’t need mental help on this one. When I “rant” at people I have never met, they have also accused me of things that are outside of the band of normalcy. Do they all need to see a psychiatrist as well? Some people debate online. If this were in person, you surely must agree what they are saying would likely trigger a response from a mentally sound person. And I constantly try to bring it back to a civil tone. I do however let people know when they are being out of line. This is not insanity.
“A few years ago, some people turned what should be an honest, intellectual discussion forum about the INSURANCE INDUSTRY into a place to vent about their political leanings. That’s not what this should be about. It’s at the point where a lot of people have stopped commenting or even reading the comments because of this. I’m not pointing the finger solely at you or any one person here.”
Which people turned this site political? The site has decided apparently to post political aspects here and this post is a clear one at that. That wasn’t any of our choices. You will note I do not bring up political points on posts about insurance. We all tend to keep on topic.
However, when we debate, there are indeed those here who turn this insurance site into a place to denounce the other side in politics. I am not one of them until the topic comes up. In terms of these topics at hand, the responses being political makes sense.
“Please accept my sincerest apology as I did not mean to offend, and all things considered should not have commented in the first place. Whether you choose to accept my apology is completely up to you, at any rate I do wish you well.”
This is an apology at the end of having said I need psychiatric help, and then backing it up before you apologized. You might understand why I am not inclined to believe it, but assuming that is your true attempt I accept.
If you find what I said to be insulting I will have to correct you in advance: All of this is my response and explanation. Inclusive of saying why calling you morally bankrupt and trash is the appropriate reply. One cannot go around calling someone psychotic and stating they should know they are seeking therapy.
I grow tired of doing these explanations of myself, how about we just shorten this up.
1: You don’t state that I need therapy when I debate issues.
2: I don’t say that’s absurd and morally reprehensible.
Action removed, reaction removed.
Louie, I’ve stated I believe Bob needs help too and he completely lost it; that was in a thread where a few other people said the same thing. My problem is not that he gets upset, but that he completely flips out. Once he loses it I ignore him for a few days. In the past he has threatened me and others with physical violence multiple times, and even ranted that if liberals did not stop implementing the policies they were elected to enact there would have to be a civil war, or in other words, people would be killed. If people don’t lay off he eventually starts ranting about his childhood and school days. He thinks disagreeing with him, and pointing out stupid statements is bullying behavior.
I agree he is close to morally bankrupt, but not fully. He is arguing for torturing people-an immoral act-if 3/100 people have information, or alternatively, torturing 97% innocents, to get at the 3%, in his fantasy world of course. He has also ranted against homosexuals, supporting treating them like second class citizens, and supported racism, even speculating black children were trained to be disobedient towards the police. He is, according to my morals, and IMO those expressed in the Bible, not a moral person.
“Louie, I’ve stated I believe Bob needs help too and he completely lost it; that was in a thread where a few other people said the same thing. My problem is not that he gets upset, but that he completely flips out. ”
While you constantly lie about what I’ve said, call me a dolt, say I’m for murdering Muslims, I have gays, and I support a 10,000 year old Earth. Yes. I freak out, occasionally and swear back. That is not insanity. The degree of control you want in PC nature is actually your method of control. You would ideally like to shut down and throw all people who freak out into psychiatry. What does that sound like? Fascism authoritarian style rule which you accuse me of.
“Once he loses it I ignore him for a few days. In the past he has threatened me and others with physical violence multiple times, and even ranted that if liberals did not stop implementing the policies they were elected to enact there would have to be a civil war, or in other words, people would be killed. If people don’t lay off he eventually starts ranting about his childhood and school days. He thinks disagreeing with him, and pointing out stupid statements is bullying behavior. ”
I have never threatened you with physical violence. I have said if you were in a bar someone would certainly punch you in the face, and the only reason you don’t get punched online is that you talk tough online. Your resulting phrase was to say YOU could kick my butt. I then said you wouldn’t stand a chance, and you mocked my lifting in the gym for months. I think this shows your insanity. You intentionally try to troll me. I do not think disagreeing with me is bullying behavior, though you do believe this (projection) I think refusing to debate topics and then trying to instead make the game about ignoring someone, saying they need mental health, etc, is bullying. That is what lead a teen to suicide recently. People like you.
“I agree he is close to morally bankrupt, but not fully. He is arguing for torturing people-an immoral act-if 3/100 people have information, or alternatively, torturing 97% innocents, to get at the 3%, in his fantasy world of course. He has also ranted against homosexuals, supporting treating them like second class citizens, and supported racism, even speculating black children were trained to be disobedient towards the police. He is, according to my morals, and IMO those expressed in the Bible, not a moral person.”
No. I’m not. Also, it is not immoral if 3 out of 100 people have information because I’m not talking 97 out of 100 are innocent. These 97 are child raping murderers. If we have these people in custody and there is a 3% chance that we can save 1,000 people by torturing them? What is immoral, not saving the 1,000 or making sure a murdering piece of crap doesn’t get tortured? You paint the people against you as immoral when in fact you are.
I have not ranted against homosexuals. You garbage. I said that there is not equality of needs for homosexual couples. I provided earnings statements proving it, and said that making single sex couples receive the same benefits as dual sex does not make sense economically, or as a matter of equality. A separate law is what I argued for, that treats them fairly. But you are delusional and make these things up. I did not imply they were trained to act disrespectfully to the police, I said that when you do you can get in serious trouble and that instead of being told the police are out to kill them (which will cause them to fight back, and would cause me to fight back, ERGO being black is not the issue it is an ACTION) they should instead be told to be sure to listen to police at all times.
This is exactly what pisses me off, you say crap like this, which again, if it were said in person a reasonable person would punch you in the fact for extreme disrespect, and then you get surprised.
We have differing opinions. That is it. And calling me these things? That is bullying. You can’t have a reasonable discussion and disagree. Instead I become a gay hater because of my beliefs.
I have never once insulted gays. I made a point of showing which gay people I listen to in lectures.
How dare you accuse me of hating them!
Also: No. I avoid you.
Any time, and EVERY time, I talk with you this happens and you refuse to shut up, until I leave.
Any time you talk with me you accuse me of this bull crap.
It isn’t ok. You are the one who is quite psychotic. It’s like you don’t hear the words you say or that I say.
Just the narrative you have created in your head.
And another final point:
I have not lost it on this page, despite your constant abuse, which is what you are currently engaging in.
It is harassment. I’m sick of it. This is not you simply disagreeing and presenting facts. At many times you attacked me by extension of affiliation, and otherwise misrepresented what I have said.
You have found reason to lump me into the Christian group to insult me, and all of your assaults are not some way of saying you disagree. They are more or less ways of saying:
You piece of crap, I hate you, you are the source of bigotry, racism, sexism, and death of innocents.
Instead of taking on the real issues in the black community, you do this. Instead of weighing if torture can save lives you instead default to calling people who try to have a debate that may save lives as immoral.
I am quite tired of your shifts to supposed morality instead of facts and then calling me the worst human in the world.
I don’t have to talk with you politely. I often do.
I don’t have to disprove you with facts.
I often do.
I don’t have engage with you, but I often do. And unlike you, it isn’t for the purpose of calling you garbage (though I will call you as such when you start with your bull as you just did) it is often TO DEBATE.
Debate is always good, exchanging ideas with the intent of change.
I can and will list what I have changed politically in the last 10 years, and where I differ from republicans. You NEVER say the same on the left. Literally, never. You always defend these guys.
I can and have tried to calm down conversations by saying my phrasings were poor and triggered people. You have NEVER said you are talking inappropriately. You are the God in your speech. If you pay attention to me long term you will see I am not in mine.
I will go back to my original gay argument I had:
Do you believe that homosexual couples (as I called them in debate single gender couples) have the same marriage needs as 2 gender couples?
That was the debate. I said no. Equality of “marriage” is not synonymous with equality of rights and needs, specifically because of the answer to the above. They are not the same. They are literally different.
Most married couples procreate. You then tried to argue with Ron that we should only have benefits for married people with couples then. I then said this would expand government and would cost more than it would benefit simply trying to ensure the right people got benefits, I also then pointed out, that married people without children tend to actually pay more in taxes (the marriage penalty as they call it) on the average. I pointed out that marriage transfers across the board could make it illegal for churches not to marry, unless they insert an exclusion for this, and I pointed to discrimination laws in WA with examples of shut down adoption agencies to show this does happen.
You then said that they deserve to be shut down if they don’t follow the law.
We can allow for both. Both can work. And you call my attempt of integration immoral.
Gays can have rights. Catholic adoption agencies can choose to adopt to only straight couples. Gay people can still get kids, and will have no problems getting them without the Catholic church. This way everyone gets their rights. Your social justice sciences have no place creating division intentionally. I also pointed out, when you and Ron implied that gay couples could have kids as well, that the amount of gay people compared to the amount of adoption children available, would take decades to provide the amount of children needed for gay couples to have as much children (If I recall it was close to a 100 years) that is not bigoted thought. That was not treating them like second class citizens.
There is no reason for us not to pass a gay rights law, you know, as it pertains to the needs of gay people, and gay marriage laws as it pertains to their needs.
Why the hell does this make me against gays?
I want a description of how specifically I wronged them?
I’m concerned about Bob. He appears to be an older, lonely gentleman that spends his a lot of his time making long comments. Anybody want to contribute any suggestions to help Bob fill his time?