Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (49272)	2/15/2008 4:48:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543147

He would say he isn't condoning its use. If you use a very wide definition of torture, his statement would be wrong (but than you would call actions torture that many would not find objectionable, and may even find to be worthy of support. If you use a very narrow definition, than he would be correct. I'm not sure if either the widest possible, or the very narrow definitions would be one that I would like, but I think its important to recognize the different definitions. Since people use different definitions much of the debate is just people talking past each other. To the extent certain particular techniques, or types of techniques predominate, or are the main one's that are being questioned, it might make sense to prefer specifically to those techniques. Then you have much less problem with semantic debate, and get straight to the disagreement over the issues. And you can have a debate between "waterboarding is an appropriate tool to use in limited circumstances" and "waterboarding is a horrible evil that violates prisoners rights under international treaties and American law". Or "stress positions/masking people stand in uncomfortable positions is appropriate to interrogate captured prisoners" vs "such treatment is inhumane, and inappropriate (and arguably illegal". And of course the debate wouldn't just be about the legality and morality of the actions but also their effectiveness (if they aren't effective than there isn't any reason to use them, except false opinions about their effectiveness, or perhaps sadism) The downside of trying to frame the argument that way is that there are many types of techniques, and trying to deal with all of them in separate statements complicates the discussion of the issue. Of course to the extent the issue is really complex, complex discussion of it is probably better than people talking past each other using the same terms to mean different things.